COLUMBIA  LIBRARIES  OFFSITE 

HEALTH  SCIENCES  STANDARD 


HX64099725 
QP45  .Sa3  1 894      Animals'  rights  i 


RECAP 


QP4-5  Sa3 

College  of  l^hiv^itimi  anb  ^urgeonss 


^.itirarp 


Digitized  by  tlie  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2010  witli  funding  from 

Open  Knowledge  Commons  (for  the  Medical  Heritage  Library  project) 


http://www.archive.org/details/animalsrightscoOOsalt. 


WORKS   BY   MR.   H.   S.   SALT. 


•/ 


SHELLEY  PRIMER.    London,  1887. 

LITERARY  SKETCHES,    Crown  8vo.    London,  1888. 

THE  LIFE  OF  JAMES  THOMSON,  with  a  Selec- 
tion from  his  Letters,  and  a  Study  of  his  Writings. 
8vo.    London, 


PERCY  BYSSHE  SHELLEY  :  A  Monograph.     With 
Portrait.    Fcap.  8vo.     London,  1889. 

RICHARD   JEFFERIES:    A  Study.     With   Portrait. 
Fcap.  8vo.    Dilettante  Library,    London,  1893. 

SONGS  OF  FREEDOM.     i6mo.    Canterbury  Poets. 
London,  1893. 

TENNYSON  AS  A  THINKER.    i2mo.   London,  1893. 

THE   LIFE   OF   HENRY   DAVID   THOREAU. 

HUMANITARIANISM  :    Its  General   Principles  and 
Progress.    London. 

A  PLEA  FOR  VEGETARIANISM,  and  Other  Essays. 
Manchester. 


ANIMALS'   RIGHTS, 


"  I  saw  deep  in  the  eyes  of  the  animals  the  human  soul 
look  out  upon  me. 

"  I  saw  where  it  was  born  deep  down  under  feathers  and 
fur,  or  condemned  for  awhile  to  roam  four-footed  among  the 
brambles.  I  caught  the  clinging  mute  glance  of  the  prisoner, 
and  swore  that  I  would  be  faithful. 

"  Thee  my  brother  and  sister  I  see  and  mistake  not.  Do 
not  be  afraid.  Dwelling  thus  for  a  while,  fulfilling  thy  ap- 
pointed time — thou  too  shalt  come  to  thyself  at  last. 

"  Thy  half- warm  horns  and  long  tongue  lapping  round  my 
wrist,  do  not  conceal  thy  humanity  any  more  than  the  learned 
talk  of  the  pedant  conceals  his — for  all  thou  art  dumb,  we 
have  words  and  plenty  between  us. 

"  Come  nigh,  little  bird,  with  your  half-stretched  quivering 
wings — within  you  I  behold  choirs  of  angels,  and  the  Lord 
himself  in  vista." 

Towards  Deinocracy. 


ANIMALS'   RIGHTS 

CONSIDERED  IN  RELATION  TO  SOCIAL 
PROGRESS 

WITH    A   BIBLIOGRAPHICAL   APPENDIX 


BY 

HENRY   S.   SALT 

AUTHOR   OF  "the  LIFE  OF   HENRY   DAVID  THOREAU  ' 


ALSO  AN  ESSA  Y 

ON   VIVISECTION    IN  AMERICA 


BY 


ALBERT  LEFFINGWELL,  M.D. 

AUTHOR    OF    "illegitimacy:    A    STUDY    IN    DEMOGRAPHY," 

"rambles  in  japan,"  etc. 


NEW  YORK 

MACMILLAN     &    CO. 

AND    LONDON 

1894 


COPYRIGHT,  1894,  BY 

MACMILLAN     &    CO. 


TROW  DIRECTORY 

PRINTING  AND   BOOKBINDING  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK 


PREFATORY    NOTE. 

The  object  of  the  following  essay  is  to  set  the  principle 
of  animals'  rights  on  a  consistent  and  intelligible  foot- 
ing, to  show  that  this  principle  underlies  the  various 
efforts  of  humanitarian  reformers,  and  to  make  a  clear- 
ance of  the  comfortable  fallacies  which  the  apologists 
of  the  present  system  have  industriously  accumulated. 
While  not  hesitating  to  speak  strongly  when  occasion 
demanded,  I  have  tried  to  avoid  the  tone  of  irrelevant 
recrimination  so  common  in  these  controversies,  and 
thus  to  give  more  unmistakable  emphasis  to  the  vital 
points  at  issue.  We  have  to  decide,  not  whether  the 
practice  of  fox-hunting,  for  example,  is  more,  or  less, 
cruel  than  vivisection,  but  whether  all  practices  which 
inflict  unnecessary  pain  on  sentient  beings  are  not  in- 
compatible with  the  higher  instincts  of  humanity. 

I  am  aware  that  many  of  my  contentions  will  appear 
very  ridiculous  to  those  who  view  the  subject  from  a 
contrary  standpoint,  and  regard  the  lower  animals  as 
created  solely  for  the  pleasure  and  advantage  of  man ; 
on  the  other  hand,  I  have  myself  derived  an  unfailing 
fund  of  amusement  from  a  rather  extensive  study  of  our 
adversaries'  reasoning.  It  is  a  conflict  of  opinion, 
wherein  time  alone  can  adjudicate ;   but  already  there 


vi  PREFATORY  NOTE. 

are  not  a  few  signs  that  the  laugh  will  rest  ultimately 
with  the  humanitarians. 

My  thanks  are  due  to  several  friends  who  have  helped 
me  in  the  preparation  of  this  book  ;  I  may  mention  Mr. 
Krnest  Bell,  Mr.  Kenneth  Romanes,  and  Mr.  W.  E.  A. 
Axon.  My  many  obligations  to  previous  writers  are 
acknowledged  in  the  foot-notes  and  appendices. 

H.  S.  S. 

Septe7nber,  1892. 


CONTENTS. 

ANIMALS'    RIGHTS. 

Chapter  I.     The  Principle  of  Animals'  Rights. 

The  general  doctrine  of  rights  ;  Herbert  Spencer's  definition. 
Early  advocates  of  animals'  rights ;  "  Martin's  Act,"  1822. 
Need  of  an  intelligible  principle.  Two  main  causes  of  the  denial 
of  animals'  rights:  (i)  The  "religious"  notion  that  animals 
have  no  souls,  (2)  the  Cartesian  theory  that  animals  have  no 
consciousness.  The  individuality  of  animals.  Opinions  of 
Schopenhauer,  Darwin,  etc.  The  question  of  nomenclature  ; 
objectionable  use  of  such  terms  as  "brute  beast,"  etc.  The 
progressiveness  of  humanitarian  feeling  ;  analogous  instance  of 
negro  slavery.  Difficulties  and  objections  ;  arguments  drawn 
from  "the  struggle  of  life."  Animals'  rights  not  antagonistic 
to  human  rights.     Summary  of  the  principle         .  pp.  1-23 

Chapter  II.     The  Case  of  Domestic  Animals. 

Special  claims  of  the  domestic  animals  ;  services  performed  by 
them  ;  human  obligations  in  return.  Opinions  of  Humphry 
Primatt  and  John  Lawrence.  Common  disregard  of  rights  in 
the  case  of  horses,  cattle,  sheep,  etc.  Castration  of  animals. 
Treatment  of  dogs  and  cats.  Condition  of  the  household  ' '  pet " 
compared  with  that  of  the  "  beast  of  burden  "       ,         pp.  24-35 


Vlii  CONTENTS. 


Chapter  III.     The  Case  of  Wild  Animals. 

Wild  animals  have  rights,  though  not  yet  recognized  in  law.  The 
influence  of  property.  Man  not  justified  in  injuring  any  harm- 
less animal.  The  condition  of  animals  in  menageries  ;  the 
fallacy  that  "  they  gain  by  it."  Caged  birds.  A  right  relation- 
ship must  be  based  on  sympathy,  not  power  .        pp.  36-42 


Chapter  IV.     The  Slaughter  of  Animals  for  Food. 

Important  bearing  of  the  food  question  on  the  consideration  of 
animals'  rights.  The  assumption  that  flesh-food  is  necessary;  con- 
tradictory statements  of  flesh-eaters.  Experience  proves  that  man 
is  not  compelled  to  kill  animals  for  food.  Cruelties  inseparable 
from  slaughtering  ;  feeling  of  repugnance  thereby  aroused. 
The  logic  of  these  facts.  Ingenious  attempts  at  evasion : 
"  Animals  would  otherwise  not  exist ;  "  "  scriptural  permission." 
The  coming  success  of  food-reform      .         .         .         pp.  43-52 


Chapter  V.     Sport,  or  Amateur  Butchery. 

Sport  the  most  wanton  of  all  violations  of  animals'  rights.  Child- 
ish fallacies  of  sportsmen.  Tame  stag-hunting  ;  rabbitcours- 
ing  ;  cruel  treatment  of  "vermin  ;  "  steel  traps.  The  testimony 
of  an  expert  on  cover-shooting  .  .  .  pp.  53-62 


Chapter  VI.     Murderous  Millinery. 

The  fur  and  feather  traffic.  In  what  sense  it  is  "necessary;" 
the  use  of  leather.  Fashionable  demand  for  furs  causes  whole 
provinces  to  be  ransacked.  The  wearing  of  feathers  in  bonnets  ; 
heartless  massacre  of  birds.  Due  to  ignorance  and  thoughtless- 
ness .  .  ......         pp.  63-71 


CONTENTS,  IX 


Chapter  VII.     Experimental  Torture. 

The  analytical  methods  of  scientists  and  naturalists.  Vivisection 
the  logical  outcome  of  this  mood.  The  horrors  of  vivisection. 
Its  alleged  utility.  Moral  considerations  involved ;  nothing 
that  is  inhuman  can  be  in  accord  with  true  science.  Experi- 
ments on  animals  as  compared  with  experiments  on  men.  The 
plea  that  vivisection  is  "no  worse"  than  other  cruelties.  The 
exact  significance  of  vivisection  in  the  question  of  animals' 
rights pp.  72-82 

Chapter  VIII.     Lines  of  Reform. 

The  lesson  of  the  foregoing  instances  of  cruelty  and  injustice  ;  the 
only  solution  of  the  problem  is  to  recognize  animals'  rights.  No 
"sentimentality,"  where  difficulties  are  fairly  faced.  The 
future  path  of  humanitarianism.  Human  interests  involved  in 
animals'  rights;  extension  of  the  idea  of  "humanity"  both  in 
western  thought  and  oriental  tradition.  The  movement  essen- 
tially a  democratic  one  ;  the  emancipation  of  man  will  bring  with 
it  the  emancipation  of  animals.  Practical  steps  toward 
securing  the  rights  of  animals  :  (i)  Education.  Useless  to 
preach  humanity  to  children  only  ;  need  of  an  intellectual  and 
literary  crusade.  The  laugh  to  be  turned  against  the  real  senti- 
mentalists, our  opponents.  (2)  Legislation,  Laisser-faire 
objections  refuted.  Cases  where  immediate  action  is  desirable. 
Conclusion pp.  83-104 


Bibliography  of  the  Rights  of  Animals    .        pp.  105-132 


X  CONTENTS. 


-VIVISECTION   IN   AMERICA. 


Chapter  I,     Vivisection  in  Medical  Schools. 

Conflicting  opinions.  What  are  "  abuses  "  of  vivisection  ?  Experi- 
ments of  Brachet,  Castex,  Von  Lesser,  Chauveau,  Mantagazza, 
and  others.  The  absence  of  restraints  always  invites  excesses. 
No  safeguards  against  the  abuse  of  experimentation  exist  in  any 
part  of  America.  What  has  been  done  in  the  United  States. 
Opinion  of  Dr.  Bigelow,  of  Harvard  University.  The  British 
Medical  Jour  tial  oxi  certain  American  "original  investigations." 
Prevention  of  abuses,  by  State  restriction  and  supervision. 

pp.  133-146 

Chapter  II.     Vivisection  in  American  Colleges. 

The  new  scientific  ideal.  Biology  in  the  American  university. 
Opportunities  for  its  study  at  Harvard,  Princeton,  Yale,  Cor- 
nell, University  of  Michigan,  and  others.  The  use  of  torture 
as  for  illustration  of  science-teaching.  The  atrocious  ex- 
periment of  Strieker,  of  Vienna.  What  prevents  its  repetition  in 
American  colleges  ?  Have  any  restrictions  been  made  by  the 
leading  colleges,  regulating  or  forbidding  the  use  of  prolonged 
torture  of  animals,  in  the  study  of  physiology?  Correspondence 
with  college  presidents.  No  impediments  at  present  hinder  the 
infliction  of  any  degree  of  torment  desired  in  any  of  the  princi- 
pal American  colleges.  Suggested  reforms.  The  responsibility 
for  low  ideals.     The  hope  for  the  future        .  pp.  147-168 

Appendix  A.     The  Lines   of   Personal  Investigation  ad- 
vised, regarding  Vivisection  .         .        pp.  169-174 

Appendix    B.       The    American    Humane    Association    01^ 
Restriction  of  Vivisection     ...        pp.  175-176 


ANIMALS'  RIGHTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    PRINCIPLE    OF    ANIMALS'   RIGHTS, 

Have  the  lower  animals  ''rights?"  Undoubtedly — if 
men  have.  That  is  the  point  I  wish  to  make  evident 
in  this  opening  chapter.  But  have  men  rights?  Let  it 
be  stated  at  the  outset  that  I  have  no  intention  of  dis- 
cussing the  abstract  theory  of  natural  rights,  which,  at 
the  present  time,  is  looked  upon  with  suspicion  and  dis- 
favour by  many  social  reformers,  since  it  has  not  unfre- 
quently  been  made  to  cover  the  most  extravagant  and 
contradictory  assertions.  But  though  its  phraseology  is 
confessedly  vague  and  perilous,  there  is  nevertheless  a 
solid  truth  underlying  it — a  truth  which  has  always  been 
clearly  apprehended  by  the  moral  faculty,  however  diffi- 
cult it  may  be  to  establish  it  on  an  unassailable  logical 
basis.  If  men  have  not  ''rights" — well,  they  have  an 
unmistakable  intimation  of  something  very  similar ;  a 
sense  of  justice  which  marks  the  boundary-line  where 
acquiescence  ceases  and  resistance  begins ;  a  demand  for 
freedom  to  live  their  own  life,  subject  to  the  necessity  of 
respecting  the  equal  freedom  of  other  people. 


2  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  rights  as  formulated  by  Her- 
bert Spencer.  ''  Every  man/'  he  says,  ''is  free  to  do 
that  which  he  wills,  provided  he  infringes  not  the  equal 
liberty  of  any  other  man."  And  again,  "  Whoever  ad- 
mits that  each  man  must  have  a  certain  restricted  free- 
dom, asserts  that  it  is  right  he  should  have  this  restricted 
freedom.  .  .  .  And  hence  the  several  particular 
freedoms  deducible  may  fitly  be  called,  as  they  common- 
ly are  called,  his  rights.''^  ^ 

The  fitness  of  this  nomenclature  is  disputed,  but  the 
existence  of  some  real  principle  of  the  kind  can  hardly 
be  called  in  question ;  so  that  the  controversy  concern- 
ing ''rights  "  is  little  else  than  an  academic  battle  over 
words,  which  leads  to  no  practical  conclusion.  I  shall 
assume,  therefore,  that  men  are  possessed  of  "  rights  "  in 
the  sense  of  Herbert  Spencer's  definition  ;  and  if  any  of 
my  readers  object  to  this  qualified  use  of  the  term,  I  can 
only  say  that  I  shall  be  perfectly  willing  to  change  the 
word  as  soon  as  a  more  appropriate  one  is  forthcoming. 
The  immediate  question  that  claims  our  attention  is  this 
— if  men  have  rights,  have  animals  their  rights  also  ? 

From  the  earliest  times  there  have  been  thinkers  who, 
directly  or  indirectly,  answered  this  question  with  an 
affirmative.  The  Buddhist  and  Pythagorean  canons, 
dominated  perhaps  by  the  creed  of  reincarnation,  in- 
cluded the  maxim  "not  to  kill  or  injure  any  innocent 
animal. ' '  The  humanitarian  philosophers  of  the  Roman 
empire,  among  whom  Seneca  and  Plutarch  and  Porphyry 
were  the  most  conspicuous,  took  still  higher  ground  in 
^  "Justice,"  pp.  46,  62. 


THE  PRINCIPLE    OF  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS.         3 

preaching  humanity  on  the  broadest  principle  of  univer- 
sal benevolence,  '■'■  Since  justice  is  due  to  rational  be- 
ings," wrote  Porphyry,  ^'  how  is  it  possible  to  evade  the 
admission  that  we  are  bound  also  to  act  justly  towards 
the  races  below  us  ?  " 

It  is  a  lamentable  fact  that  during  the  churchdom  of 
the  middle  ages,  from  the  fourth  century  to  the  six- 
teenth, from  the  time  of  Porphyry  to  the  time  of  Mon- 
taigne, little  or  no  attention  was  paid  to  the  question  of 
the  rights  and  wrongs  of  the  lower  races.  Then,  with 
the  Reformation  and  the  revival  of  learning,  came  a  re- 
vival also  of  humanitarian  feeling,  as  may  be  seen  in 
many  passages  of  Erasmus  and  More,  Shakespeare  and 
Bacon ;  but  it  was  not  until  the  eighteenth  century,  the 
age  of  enlightenment  and  ^'sensibility,"  of  which  Vol- 
taire and  Rousseau  were  the  spokesmen,  that  the  rights 
of  animals  obtained  more  deliberate  recognition.  From 
the  great  Revolution  of  1789  dates  the  period  when  the 
world-wide  spirit  of  humanitarianism,  which  had  hitherto 
been  felt  by  but  one  man  in  a  million — the  thesis  of  the 
philosopher  or  the  vision  of  the  poet — began  to  disclose 
itself,  gradually  and  dimly  at  first,  as  an  essential  feature 
of  democracy. 

A  great  and  far-reaching  effect  was  produced  in  Eng- 
land at  this  time  by  the  publication  of  such  revolutionary 
works  as  Paine's  ''Rights  of  Man,"  and  Mary  Woll- 
stonecraft's  "  Vindication  of  the  Rights  of  Women;  " 
and  looking  back  now,  after  the  lapse  of  a  hundred 
years,  we  can  see  that  a  still  wider  extension  of  the  the- 
ory of  rights  was  thenceforth  inevitable.     In  fact,  such 


4  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

a  claim  was  anticipated — if  only  in  bitter  jest — by  a 
contemporary  writer,  who  furnishes  us  with  a  notable  in- 
stance of  how  the  mockery  of  one  generation  may  be- 
come the  reality  of  the  next.  There  was  published 
anonymously  in  1792  a  little  volume  entitled  "  A  Vin- 
dication of  the  Rights  of  Brutes, "  ^  a  reductio  ad  absur- 
dum  of  Mary  Wollstonecraft's  essay,  written,  as  the 
author  informs  us,  '^  to  evince  by  demonstrative  argu- 
ments the  perfect  equality  of  what  is  called  the  irrational 
species  to  the  human. ' '  The  further  opinion  is  expressed 
that  ^'  after  those  wonderful  productions  of  Mr.  Paine 
and  Mrs.  Wollstonecraft,  such  a  theory  as  the  present 
seems  to  be  necessary. ' '  It  was  necessary ;  and  a  very 
short  term  of  years  sufficed  to  bring  it  into  effect ;  in- 
deed, the  theory  had  already  been  put  forward  by  sev- 
eral English  pioneers  of  nineteenth-century  humanita- 
rianism. 

To  Jeremy  Bentham,  in  particular,  belongs  the  high 
honour  of  first  asserting  the  rights  of  animals  with  au- 
thority and  persistence.  "The  legislator,"  he  wrote, 
^'  ought  to  interdict  everything  which  may  serve  to 
lead  to  cruelty.  The  barbarous  spectacles  of  gladiators 
no  doubt  contributed  to  give  the  Romans  that  ferocity 
which  they  displayed  in  their  civil  wars.  A  people  ac- 
customed to  despise  human  life  in  their  games  could 
not  be  expected  to  respect  it  amid  the  fury  of  their  pas- 
sions. It  is  proper  for  the  same  reason  to  forbid  every 
kind  of  cruelty  towards  animals,  whether  by  way  of 
amusement,  or  to  gratify  gluttony.  Cock-fights,  bull- 
^  Attributed  to  Thomas  Taylor,  the  Platonist. 


THE  PRINCIPLE    OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.         5 

baiting,  hunting  hares  and  foxes,  fishing,  and  other 
amusements  of  the  same  kind,  necessarily  suppose  either 
the  absence  of  reflection  or  a  fund  of  inhumanity,  since 
they  produce  the  most  acute  sufferings  to  sensible 
beings,  and  the  most  painful  and  lingering  death  of 
which  we  can  form  any  idea.  Why  should  the  law  re- 
fuse its  protection  to  any  sensitive  being?  The  time 
will  come  when  humanity  will  extend  its  mantle  over 
everything  which  breathes.  We  have  begun  by  attend- 
ing to  the  condition  of  slaves;  we  shall  finish  by  soften- 
ing that  of  all  the  animals  which  assist  our  labours 
or  supply  our  wants."  ^ 

So,  too,  wrote  one  of  Bentham's  contemporaries : 
*'  The  grand  source  of  the  unmerited  and  superfluous 
misery  of  beasts  exists  in  a  defect  in  the  constitution 
of  all  communities.  No  human  government,  I  believe, 
has  ever  recognized  the  jits  animalium,  which  ought 
surely  to  form  a  part  of  the  jurisprudence  of  every 
system  founded  on  the  principles  of  justice  and  human- 
ity." ^  A  large  number  of  later  moralists  have  fol- 
lowed on  the  same  lines,  with  the  result  that  the  rights 
of  animals  have  already,  to  a  certain  limited  extent, 
been  established  both  in  private  usage  and  by  legal 
enactment. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  exact  commencement  of 
this  new  principle  in  law.  When  Lord  Erskine,  speak- 
ing  in  the    House  of  Lords  in   1811,    advocated  the 

'"  Principles  of  Penal  Law,"  chajp.  xvi. 

^  John  Lawrence,  "Philosophical  Treatise  on  the  Moral  Duties 
of  Man  towards  the  Brute  Creation,"  1796. 


6  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

cause  of  justice   to   the  lower  animals,  he  Avas  greeted 
witli   loud    cries  of  insult  and    derision.     But   eleven 
years  later  the  efforts  of  the  despised    humanitarians, 
and  especially  of  Richard  Martin,  of  Galvvay,  were  re- 
warded by  their  first  success.     The  passing  of  the  Ill- 
treatment  of  Cattle  Bill,  commonly  known  as  ''  Martin's 
Act,"  in  June,  1822,  is  a  memorable  date  in  the  history 
of  humane  legislation,  less  on  account  of  the  positive 
protection  afforded  by  it,  for  it  applied  only  to  cattle 
and  "  beasts  of  burden,"  than  for  the  invaluable  prece- 
dent which  it  created.     From  1822  onward,  the  prin- 
ciple of  that  jus  a7iimaliii7n  for   which    Bentham  had 
pleaded,  was  recognized,  however  partially  and  tenta- 
tively at  first,  by  English  law,  and  the  animals  included 
in  the  Act  ceased  to  be  the  mere  property  of  their  own- 
ers ;  moreover  the  Act  has  been  several  times  supple- 
mented and  extended  during  the  past  half  century.^     It 
is  scarcely  possible,  in   the  face  of  this  legislation,  to 
maintain   that    '^rights"    are   a  privilege   with    which 
none  but  human  beings  can  be  invested  ;  for  if  some 
animals  are  already  included  within  the  pale  of  protec- 
tion, why  should  not  more  and  more  be  so  included  in 
the  future? 

For  the  present,  however,  what  is  most  urgently  need- 
ed is  some  comprehensive  and  intelligible  principle, 
which  shall  indicate,  in  a  more  consistent  manner,  the 
true  lines  of  man's  moral  relation  towards   the  lower 

^  Viz.  :  in  1833,  1835,  1849,  1854,  1876,  1884.  We  shall  have 
occasion,  in  subsequent  chapters,  to  refer  to  some  of  these  enact- 
ments. 


THE  PRINCIPLE    OF  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS.         7 

animals.  And  here,  it  must  be  admitted,  our  position 
is  still  far  from  satisfactory ;  for  though  certain  very 
important  concessions  have  been  made,  as  we  have  seen , 
to  the  demand  for  the  jus  animalmm,  they  have  been 
made  for  the  most  part  in  a  grudging,  unwilling  spirit, 
and  rather  in  the  interests  oi property  than  oi  principle  ; 
while  even  the  leading  advocates  of  animals'  rights 
seem  to  have  shrunk  from  basing  their  claim  on  the 
only  argument  which  can  ultimately  be  held  to  be  a 
really  sufficient  one— the  assertion  that  animals,  as  well 
as  men,  though,  of  course,  to  a  far  less  extent  than  men, 
are  possessed  of  a  distinctive  individuality,  and,  there- 
fore, are  in  justice  entitled  to  live  their  lives  with  a 
due  measure  of  that  ''restricted  freedom"  to  which 
Herbert  Spencer  alludes.  It  is  of  little  use  to  claim 
"  rights  "  for  animals  in  a  vague  general  way,  if  with  * 
the  same  breath  we  explicitly  show  our  determination  to 
subordinate  those  rights  to  anything  and  everything  that 
can  be  construed  into  a  human  ''want;"  nor  will  it 
ever  be  possible  to  obtain  full  justice  for  the  lower 
races  so  long  as  we  continue  to  regard  them  as  beings  of 
a  wholly  different  order,  and  to  ignore  the  significance 
of  their  numberless  points  of  kinship  with  mankind.         / 

For  example,  it  has  been  said  by  a  well-known  writer 
on  the  subject  of  humanity  to  animals  ^  that  "  the  life  of 
a  brute,  having  no  moral  purpose,  can  best  be  under- 
stood ethically  as  representing  the  sum  of  its  pleasures  ; 
and  the  obligation,  therefore,  of  producing  the  pleasures 

1  "Fraser,"  November,  1863  ;  "The  Rights  of  Man  and  the 
Claims  of  Brutes." 


8  ANIMALS'  RIGHTS. 

of  sentient  creatures  must  be  reduced,  in  their  case,  to 
the  abstinence  from  unnecessary  destruction  of  life." 
Now,  with  respect  to  this  statement,  I  must  say  that  the 
notion  of  the  Hfe  of  an  animal  having  ''  no  moral  pur- 
pose," belongs  to  a  class  of  ideas  which  cannot  possibly 
be  accepted  by  the  advanced  humanitarian  thought  of 
the  present  day — it  is  a  purely  arbitrary  assumption,  at 
variance  with  our  best  instintcs,  at  variance  with  our 
best  science,  and  absolutely  fatal  (if  the  subject  be 
clearly  thought  out)  to  any  full  realization  of  animals' 
rights.  If  we  are  ever  going  to  do  justice  to  the  lower 
races,  we  must  get  rid  of  the  antiquated  notion  of  a 
"great  gulf"  fixed  between  them  and  mankind,  and 
must  recognize  the  common  bond  of  humanity  that 
unites  all  living  beings  in  one  universal  brotherhood. 

As  far  as  any  excuses  can  be  alleged,  in  explanation 
of  the  insensibility  or  inhumanity  of  the  western  nations 
in  their  treatment  of  animals,  these  excuses  may  be 
mostly  traced  back  to  one  or  the  other  of  two  theoretical 
contentions,  wholly  different  in  origin,  yet  alike  in  this 
— that  both  postulate  an  absolute  difference  of  nature 
between  men  and  the  lower  kinds. 

The  first  is  the  so-called  "religious"  notion,  which 
awards  immortality  to  man,  but  to  man  alone,  thereby 
furnishing  (especially  in  Catholic  countries)  a  quibbling 
justification  for  acts  of  cruelty  to  animals,  on  the  plea 
that  they  "  have  no  souls."  "  It  should  seem,"  says  a 
modern  writer,^  "  as  if  the  primitive  Christians,  by  lay- 

^  Mrs.  Jameson,   "  Book  of  Thoughts,  Memories,  and  Fancies," 

1854.  ■     • 


THE  PRINCIPLE    OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.         9 

ing  SO  much  stress  upon  a  future  life,  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  this  life,  and  placing  the  lower  creatures  out  of  the 
pale  of  hope,  placed  them  at  the  same  time  out  of  the  pale 
of  sympathy,  and  thus  laid  the  foundation  for  this  utter 
disregard  of  animals  in  the  light  of  our  fellow-creatures." 
I  am  aware  that  a  quite  contrary  argument  has,  in  a 
few  isolated  instances,  been  founded  on  the  belief  that 
animals  have  ''no  souls."  Humphry  Primatt,  for  ex- 
ample, says  that  ''  cruelty  to  a  brute  is  an  injury  irrep- 
arable," because  there  is  no  future  life  to  be  a  compen- 
sation for  present  afflictions ;  and  there  is  an  amusing 
story,  told  by  Lecky  in  his  "History  of  European 
Morals,"  of  a  certain  humanely-minded  Cardinal,  who 
used  to  allow  vermin  to  bite  him  without  hindrance,  on 
the  ground  that  ''  we  shall  have  heaven  to  reward  us  for 
our  sufferings,  but  these  poor  creatures  have  nothing  but 
the  enjoyment  of  this  present  life. ' '  But  this  is  a  rare 
view  of  the  question  which  need  not,  I  think,  be  taken 
into  very  serious  account ;  for,  on  the  whole,  the  denial 
of  immortality  to  animals  (unless,  of  course,  it  be  also 
denied  to  men)  tends  strongly  to  lessen  their  chance  of 
being  justly  and  considerately  treated.  Among  the 
many  humane  movements  of  the  present  age,  none  is 
more  significant  than  the  growing  inclination,  noticeable 
both  in  scientific  circles  and  in  religious,  to  believe  that 
mankind  and  the  lower  animals  have  the  same  destiny 
before  them,  whether  that  destiny  be  for  immortality  or 
for  annihilation.^ 

'  See  the  article  on  "Animal  Immortality,"    "  The  Nineteenth 
Century,"  Jan.,   1891,  by  Norman  Pearson.     The  upshot  of  his 


10  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

The  second  and  not  less  fruitful  source  of  modern  in- 
humanity is  to  be  found  in  the  ' '  Cartesian  ' '  doctrine 
— the  theory  of  Descartes  and  his  followers — that  the 
lower  animals  are  devoid  of  consciousness  and  feeling ;  a 
theory  which  carried  the  ^*  religious  "  notion  a  step  fur- 
ther, and  deprived  the  animals  not  only  of  their  claim  to 
a  life  hereafter,  but  of  anything  that  could,  without 
mockery,  be  called  a  life  in  the  present,  since  mere 
^'animated  machines,"  as  they  were  thus  affirmed  to  be, 
could  in  no  real  sense  be  said  to  live  at  all !  Well  might 
Voltaire  turn  his  humane  ridicule  against  this  most  mon- 
strous contention,  and  suggest,  with  scathing  irony,  that 
God  ''had  given  the  animals  the  organs  of  feeling,  to 
the  end  that  they  might  not  feel !  "  "  The  theory  of 
animal  automatism,"  says  one  of  the  leading  scientists 
of  the  present  day,i  ''  which  is  usually  attributed  to 
Descartes,  can  never  be  accepted  by  common  sense." 
Yet  it  is  to  be  feared  that  it  has  done  much,  in  its  time, 
to  harden  ''scientific  "  sense  against  the  just  complaints 
of  the  victims  of  human  arrogance  and  oppression. 

Let  me  here  quote  a  most  impressive  passage  from 
Scliopenhauer.  "  The  unpardonable  forgetfulness  in 
which  the  lower  animals  have  hitherto  been  left  by  the 

argument  is,  that  "if  we  accept  the  immortality  of  the  human 
soul,  and  also  accept  its  evolutional  origin,  we  cannot  deny  the  sur- 
vival, in  some  form  or  other,  of  animal  minds." 

^  G.  J.  Romanes,  "  Animal  Intelligence."  Prof.  Huxley's  re- 
marks, in  "  Science  and  Culture,"  give  a  partial  support  to  Des- 
cartes' theory,  but  do  not  bear  on  the  moral  question  of  rights. 
For,  though  he  concludes  that  animals  are  probably  ' '  sensitive 
automata,"  he  classes  men  in  the  same  category. 


THE  PRINCIPLE    OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.       11 

moralists  of  Europe  is  well  known.  It  is  pretended  that 
the  beasts  have  no  rights.  They  persuade  themselves 
that  our  conduct  in  regard  to  them  has  nothing  to  do 
with  morals,  or  (to  speak  the  language  of  their  moral- 
ity) that  we  have  no  duties  towards  animals  :  a  doc- 
trine revolting,  gross,  and  barbarous,  peculiar  to  the 
west,  and  having  its  root  in  Judaism.  In  philosophy, 
however,  it  is  made  to  rest  upon  a  hypothesis,  admitted, 
in  despite  of  evidence  itself,  of  an  absolute  difference 
between  man  and  beast.  It  is  Descartes  who  has  pro- 
claimed it  in  the  clearest  and  most  decisive  manner; 
and  in  fact  it  was  a  necessary  consequence  of  his  errors. 
The  Cartesian  -  Leibnitzian  -  Wolfian  philosophy,  with 
the  assistance  of  entirely  abstract  notions,  had  built  up 
the  'rational  psychology,'  and  constructed  an  immor- 
tal anima  rationalis :  but,  visibly,  the  world  of  beasts, 
with  its  very  natural  claims,  stood  up  against  this  ex- 
clusive monopoly — this  brevet  of  immortality  decreed 
to  man  alone — and  silently  Nature  did  what  she  always 
does  in  such  cases — she  protested.  Our  philosophers, 
feehng  their  scientific  conscience  quite  disturbed,  were 
forced  to  attempt  to  consolidate  their  '  rational  psychol- 
ogy'  by  the  aid  of  empiricism.  They  therefore  set 
themselves  to  work  to  hollow  out  between  man  and 
beast  an  enormous  abyss,  of  an  immeasurable  width ; 
by  this  they  wish  to  prove  to  us,  in  contempt  of  evi- 
dence, an  impassable  difference. ' '  ^ 

The  fallacious  idea  that  the  lives  of  animals  have  '^  no 

'  Schopenhauer's  "  Foundation  of  Morality."     I  quote  the  pas- 
sage as  translated  in  Mr.  Howard  Williams's  "  Ethics  of  Diet." 


12  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

moral  purpose  "is  at  root  connected  with  these  rehg- 
ious  and  philosophical  pretensions  which  Schopenhauer 
so  powerfully  condemns.  To  live  one's  own  life — to 
realize  one's  true  self — is  the  highest  moral  purpose  of 
man  and  animal  alike ;  and  that  animals  possess  their 
due  measure  of  this  sense  of  individuality  is  scarcely 
open  to  doubt.  "  We  have  seen,"  says  Darwin,  ''  that 
the  senses  and  intuitions,  the  various  emotions  and 
faculties,  such  as  love,  memory,  attention,  curiosity, 
imitation,  reason,  etc.,  of  which  man  boasts,  may  be 
found  in  an  incipient,  or  even  sometimes  in  a  well-de- 
veloped condition,  in  the  lower  animals."  ^  Not  less 
emphatic  is  the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  J.  G.  Wood, 
who,  speaking  from  a  great  experience,  gives  it  as  his 
opinion  that  "  the  manner  in  which  Ave  ignore  individ- 
uality in  the  lower  animals  is  simply  astounding."  He 
claims  for  them  a  future  life,  because  he  is  "  quite  sure 
that  most  of  the  cruelties  which  are  perpetrated  on  the 
animals  are  due  to  the  habit  of  considering  them  as 
mere  machines  without  susceptibilities,  without  reason, 
and  without  the  capacity  of  a  future.^ '  ^ 

This,  then,  is  the  position  of  those  who  assert  that 
animals,  like  men,  are  necessarily  possessed  of  certain 
limited  rights,  which  cannot  be  withheld  from  them  as 
they  are  now  withheld  without  tyranny  and  injustice. 
They  have  individuality,  character,  reason ;  and  to 
have  those  qualities  is  to  have  the  right  to  exercise 
them,  in  so  far  as  surrounding  circumstances  permit. 

^  "  Descent  of  Man,"  chap.  iii. 

2  "  Man  and  Beast,  here  and  hereafter,"  1874. 


THE  PRINCIPLE    OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.       1 3 

*'  Freedom  of  choice  and  act,"  says  Ouida,  ''  is  the  first 
condition  of  animal  as  of  human  happiness.  How 
many  animals  in  a  million  have  even  relative  freedom 
in  any  moment  of  their  lives  ?  No  choice  is  ever  per- 
mitted to  them ;  and  all  their  most  natural  instincts  are 
denied  or  made  subject  to  authority."  ^  Yet  no  human 
being  is  justified  in  regarding  any  animal  whatsoever  as 
a  meaningless  automaton,  to  be  worked,  or  tortured, 
or  eaten,  as  the  case  may  be,  for  the  mere  object  of  sat- 
isfying the  wants  or- whims  of  mankind.  Together  with 
the  destinies  and  duties  that  are  laid  on  them  and  ful- 
filled by  them,  animals  have  also  the  right  to  be  treated 
with  gentleness  and  consideration,  and  the  man  who 
does  not  so  treat  them,  however  great  his  learning  or 
influence  may  be,  is,  in  that  respect,  an  ignorant  and 
foolish  man,  devoid  of  the  highest  and  noblest  culture 
of  which  the  human  mind  is  capable. 

Something  must  here  be  said  on  the  important  sub- 
ject of  nomenclature.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  the  ill- 
treatment  of  animals  is  largely  due — or  at  any  rate  the 
difficulty  of  amending  that  treatment  is  largely  increased 
— by  the  common  use  of  such  terms  as  ''  brute-beast," 
<'  live-stock,"  etc.,  which  implicitly  deny  to  the  lower 
races  that  intelligent  individuality  which  is  most  un- 
doubtedly possessed  by  them.  It  was  long  ago  remarked 
by  Bentham,  in  his  ''Introduction  to  Principles  of 
Morals  and  Legislation,"  that,  whereas  human  beings  are 
^XyX^di  persons,  "  other  animals,  on  account  of  their  in- 
terests having  been  neglected  by  the  insensibility  of  the 
1  "  Fortnightly  Review,"  April,  1892. 


14  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

ancient  jurists,  stand  degraded  into  the  class  of  tJmigs  ;  ' ' 
and  Schopenhauer  also  has  commented  on  the  mischiev- 
ous absurdity  of  the  idiom  which  applies  the  neuter 
pronoun  "  it "  to  such  highly  organized  primates  as  the 
dog  and  the  ape. 

A  word  of  protest  is  needed  also  against  such  an  ex- 
pression as  "  dumb  animals,"  which,  though  often  cited 
as  ''an  immense  exhortation  to  pity,"  ^  has  in  reality  a 
tendency  to  influence  ordinary  people  in  quite  the  con- 
trary direction,  inasmuch  as  it  fosters  the  idea  of  an  im- 
passable barrier  between  mankind  and  their  dependents. 
It  is  convenient  to  us  men  to  be  deaf  to  the  entreaties 
of  the  victims  of  our  injustice  ;  and,  by  a  sort  of  grim 
irony,  we  therefore  assume  that  it  is  they  who  are 
afllicted  by  some  organic  incapacity — they  are  ''dumb 
animals,"  forsooth  !  although  a  moment's  consideration 
must  prove  that  they  have  innumerable  ways,  often 
quite  human  in  variety  and  suggestiveness,  of  uttering 
their  thoughts  and  emotions.'^     Even  the  term  "  ani- 

'  In  Sir  A.  Helps's  "  Animals  and  their  Masters." 
^  Let  those  who  think  that  men  are  likely  to  treat  animals  with 
more  humanity  on  account  of  their  dumbness  ponder  the  case  of 
the  fish,  as  exemplified  in  the  following  whimsically  suggestive 
passage  of  Leigh  Hunt's  "  Imaginary  Conversations  of  Pope  and 
Swift."  "  The  Dean  once  asked  a  scrub  who  was  fishing,  if  he 
had  ever  caught  a  fish  called  the  Scream.  The  man  protested  that 
he  had  never  heard  of  such  a  fish.  '  What !  *  says  the  Dean, 
'  you  an  angler,  and  never  heard  of  the  fish  that  gives  a  shriek 
when  coming  out  of  the  water?  'Tis  the  only  fish  that  has  a  voice, 
and  a  sad,  dismal  sound  it  is.'  The  man  asked  who  could  be  so 
barbarous  as  to  angle  for  a  creature  that  shrieked.     '  That,'  said 


THE  PRINCIPLE    OF  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS.       1 5 

mals,"  as  applied  to  the  lower  races,  is  incorrect,  and 
not  wholly  unobjectionable,  since  it  ignores  the  fact 
that  man  is  an  animal  no  less  than  they.  My  only  ex- 
cuse for  using  it  in  this  volume  is  that  there  is  absolutely 
no  other  brief  term  available. 

So  anomalous  is  the  attitude  of  man  towards  the  low- 
er animals,  that  it  is  no  marvel  if  many  humane  think- 
ers have  wellnigh  despaired  over  this  question.  '^  The 
whole  subject  of  the  brute  creation, ' '  wrote  Dr.  Arnold, 
^  Ms  to  me  one  of  such  painful  mystery,  that  I  dare  not 
approach  it ;  "  and  this  (to  put  the  most  charitable  in- 
terpretation on  their  silence)  appears  to  be  the  position 
of  the  majority  of  moralists  and  teachers  at  the  present 
time.  Yet  there  is  urgent  need  of  some  key  to  the  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  ;  and  in  no  other  way  can  this  key 
be  found  than  by  the  full  inclusion  of  the  lower  races 
within  the  pale  of  human  sympathy.  All  the  prompt- 
ings of  our  best  and  surest  instincts  point  us  in  this 
direction.  *'It  is  abundantly  evident,"  says  Lecky,i 
"  both  from  history  and  from  present  experience,  that  the 
instinctive  shock,  or  natural  feelings  of  disgust,  caused 
by  the  sight  of  the  sufferings  of  men,  is  not  generically 
different  from  that  which  is  caused  by  the  sight  of  the 
suffering  of  animals. ' ' 

If  this  be  so — and  the  admission  is  a  momentous  one 
— can  it  be  seriously  contended  that  the  same  humani- 

the  Dean,  '  is  another  matter  ;  but  what  do  you  think  of  fellows 
that  I  have  seen,  whose  only  reason  for  hooking  and  tearing  all 
the  fish  they  can  get  at,  is  that  they  do  not  scream?'  " 
*  "  History  of  European  Morals." 


1 6  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

tarian  tendency  which  has  already  emancipated  the 
slave,  will  not  ultimately  benefit  the  lower  races  also? 
Here,  again,  the  historian  of  **  European  Morals"  has 
a  significant  remark:  ^'At  one  time,"  he  says,  "the 
benevolent  affections  embrace  merely  the  family,  soon 
the  circle  expanding  includes  first  a  class,  then  a  na- 
tion, then  a  coalition  of  nations,  then  all  humanity;  and 
finally  its  influence  is  felt  in  the  dealings  of  man  with 
the  animal  world.  In  each  of  these  cases  a  standard  is 
formed,  different  from  that  of  the  preceding  stage,  but  in 
each  case  the  same  tendency  is  recognized  as  virtue. ' '  ^ 

But,  it  may  be  argued,  vague  sympathy  with  the 
lower  animals  is  one  thing,  and  a  definite  recognition  of 
their  "rights  "  is  another;  what  reason  is  there  to  sup- 
pose that  we  shall  advance  from  the  former  phase  to  the 
latter  ?  Just  this ;  that  every  great  liberating  move- 
ment has  proceeded  exactly  on  these  lines.  Oppression 
and  cruelty  are  invariably  founded  on  a  lack  of  imag- 
inative sympathy ;  the  tyrant  or  tormentor  can  have 
no  true  sense  of  kinship  with  the  victim  of  his  injustice. 
When  once  the  sense  of  affinity  is  awakened,  the  knell 
of  tyranny  is  sounded,  and  the  ultimate  concession  of 
* '  rights ' '  is  simply  a  matter  of  time.  The  present 
condition  of  the  more  highly  organized  domestic  ani- 
mals is  in  many  ways  very  analogous  to  that  of  the 
negro  slaves  of  a  hundred  years  ago  :  look  back,  and 
you  will  find  in  their  case  precisely  the  same  exclusion 
from  the  common  pale  of  humanity ;  the  same  hypo- 
critical fallacies,  to  justify  that  exclusion ;  and,  as  a 
^  "  History  of  European  Morals,"  i.  loi. 


THE  PRINCIPLE    OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.       1/ 

consequence,  the  same  deliberate  stubborn  denial  of 
their  social  '^  rights."  Look  back — for  it  is  well  to  do 
so — and  then  look  forward,  and  the  moral  can  hardly 
be  mistaken. 

We  find  so  great  a  thinker  and  writer  as  Aristotle 
seriously  pondering  whether  a  slave  may  be  considered  as 
in  any  sense  a  man.  In  emphasizing  the  point  that 
friendship  is  founded  on  propinquity,  he  expresses  him- 
self as  follows  :  ''  Neither  can  men  have  friendships  with 
horses,  cattle,  or  slaves,  considered  merely  as  such  ;  for 
a  slave  is  merely  a  living  instrument,  and  an  instrument 
a  living  slave.  Yet,  considered  as  a  man,  a  slave  may 
be  an  object  of  friendship,  for  certain  rights  seem  to 
belong  to  all  those  capable  of  participating  in  law  and 
engagement.  A  slave,  then,  considered  as  a  man,  may 
be  treated  justly  or  unjustly."  ^  ''Slaves,"  says  Ben- 
tham,  ''have  been  treated  by  the  law  exactly  upon  the 
same  footing  as  in  England,  for  example,  the  inferior 
races  of  animals  are  still.  The  day  may  come  when  the 
rest  of  the  animal  creation  may  acquire  those  rights 
which  could  never  have  been  wathholden  from  them  but 
by  the  hand  of  tyranny. ' '  ^ 

Let  us  unreservedly  admit  the  immense  difficulties 
that  stand  in  the  way  of  this  animal  enfranchisement. 
Our  relation  towards  the  animals  is  complicated  and 
embittered  by  innumerable  habits  handed  down  through 
centuries  of  mistrust  and  brutality ;  we  cannot,  in  all 
cases,  suddenly  relax  these  habits,  or  do  full  justice  even 

^  "  Ethics,"  book  viii. 
2  "  Principles  of  Morals  and  Legislation." 
2 


1 8  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

where  we  see  that  justice  will  have  to  be  done.  A  per- 
fect ethic  of  humaneness  is  therefore  impracticable,  if 
not  unthinkable  ;  and  we  can  attempt  to  do  no  more 
than  to  indicate  in  a  general  way  the  main  principle  of 
animals'  rights,  noting  at  the  same  time  the  most  flagrant 
particular  violations  of  those  rights,  and  the  lines  on 
which  the  only  valid  reform  can  hereafter  be  effected. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  remembered,  for  tliQ 
comfort  and  encouragement  of  humanitarian  workers, 
that. these  obstacles  are,  after  all,  only  such  as  are  inevi- 
table in  each  branch  of  social  improvement ;  for  at  every 
stage  of  every  great  reformation  it  has  been  repeatedly 
argued,  by  indifferent  or  hostile  observers,  that  further 
progress  is  impossible  ;  indeed,  when  the  opponents  of  a 
great  cause  begin  to  demonstrate  its  ''impossibility," 
experience  teaches  us  that  that  cause  is  already  on  the 
high  road  to  fulfilment. 

As  for  the  demand  so  frequently  made  on  reformers, 
that  they  should  first  explain  the  details  of  their  scheme 
— how  this  and  that  point  will  be  arranged,  and  by  what 
process  all  kinds  of  difficulties,  real  or  imagined,  will  be 
circumvented — the  only  rational  reply  is  that  it  is  absurd 
to  expect  to  see  the  end  of  a  question,  when  we  are  now 
but  at  its  beginning.  The  persons  who  offer  this  futile 
sort  of  criticism  are  usually  those  who  under  no  circum- 
stances would  be  open  to  conviction  \  they  purposely 
ask  for  an  explanation  which,  by  the  very  nature  of  the 
case,  is  impossible  because  it  necessarily  belongs  to  a 
later  period  of  time.  It  would  be  equally  sensible  to 
request  a  traveller  td  enumerate  beforehand  all  the  par- 


THE  PRINCIPLE    OF  ANIMALS'    lUGIITS.       1 9 

ticular  things  he  will  see  by  the  way,  on  pain  of  being 
denounced  as  an  unpractical  visionary,  although  he  may 
have  a  quite  sufficient  general  knowledge  of  his  course 
and  destination. 

Our  main  principle  is  now  clear.  If  '''rights  "  exist 
at  all — and  both  feeling  and  usage  indubitably  prove  that 
they  do  exist — they  cannot  be  consistently  awarded  to 
men  and  denied  to  animals,  since  the  same  sense  of  jus- 
tice and  compassion  apply  in  both  cases.  ''Pain  is 
pain,"  says  an  honest,  old  writer,  ^  "  whether  it  be  in- 
flicted on  man  or  on  beast ;  and  the  creature  that  suffers 
it,  whether  man  or  beast,  being  sensible  of  the  misery  of 
it  while  it  lasts,  suffers  evil ;  and  the  sufferance  of  evil, 
unmeritedly,  unprovokedly,  where  no  offence  has  been 
given,  and  no  good  can  possibly  be  answered  by  it,  but 
merely  to  exhibit  power  or  gratify  malice,  is  Cruelty  and 
Injustice  in  him  that  occasions  it." 

I  commend  this  outspoken  utterance  to  the  attention  of 
those  ingenious  moralists  who  quibble  about  the  "dis- 
cipline "  of  suffering,  and  deprecate  immediate  attempts 
to  redress  what,  it  is  alleged,  may  be  a  necessary  instru- 
ment for  the  attainment  of  human  welfare.  It  is,  per- 
haps, a  mere  coincidence,  but  it  has  been  observed  that 
those  who  are  most  forward  to  disallow  the  rights  of 
others,  and  to  argue  that  suffering  and  subjection  are 
the  natural  lot  of  all  living  things,  are  usually  them- 
selves exempt  from  the  operation  of  this  beneficent  law, 
and  that  the  beauty  of  self-sacrifice  is  most  loudly  be- 

^  Humphry  Primatt,  D.D.,  author  of   "  The  Duty  of  Mercy  to 
Brute  Animals  "  (1776). 


20  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

lauded  by  those  who  profit  most  largely  at  the  expense 
of  their  fellow-creatures. 

But  ''nature  is  one  with  rapine,"  say  some,  and  this 
Utopian  theory  of  ''rights,"  if  too  widely  extended, 
must  come  in  conflict  with  that  iron  rule  of  internecine 
competition,  by  which  the  universe  is  regulated.  But 
is  the  universe  so  regulated  ?  We  note  that  this  very 
objection,  which  was  confidently  relied  on  a  few  years 
back  by  many  opponents  of  the  emancipation  of  the 
working-classes,  is  not  heard  of  in  that  connection  now  ! 
Our  learned  economists  and  men  of  science,  who  set 
themselves  to  play  the  defenders  of  the  social  status  quo, 
have  seen  their  own  weapons  of  "natural  selection," 
"  survival  of  the  fittest,"  and  what  not,  snatched  from 
their  hands  and  turned  against  them,  and  are  therefore 
beginning  to  explain  to  us,  in  a  scientific  manner,  what 
we  untutored  humanitarians  had  previously  felt  to  be 
true,  viz.,  that  competition  is  not  by  any  means  the 
sole  governing  law  among  the  human  race.  We  are  not 
greatly  dismayed,  then,  to  find  the  same  old  bugbear 
trotted  out  as  an  argument  against  animals'  rights — 
indeed,  we  see  already  unmistakable  signs  of  a  similar 
complete  reversal  of  the  scientific  judgment.^ 

^  See  Prince  Kropotkine's  articles  on  "  Mutual  Aid  among  Ani- 
mals," "  Nineteenth  Century,"  1890,  where  the  conclusion  is  ar- 
rived at  that  ' '  sociability  is  as  much  a  law  of  nature  as  mutual 
struggle."  A  similar  view  is  expressed  in  the  "  Study  of  Animal 
Life,"  1892,  by  J.  Arthur  Thomson.  "What  we  must  protest 
against,"  he  says,  in  an  interesting  chapter  on  "  The  Struggle  of 
Life,"  "  is  that  one-sided  interpretation  according  to  which  indi- 
vidualistic competition  is  nature's  sole  method  of  progress;     .     .     . 


THE  PRINCIPLE    OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.       21 

The  charge  of  ^' sentimentalism  "  is  frequently 
brought  against  those  who  plead  for  animals'  rights. 
Now  '' sentimentalism,"  if  any  meaning  at  all  can 
be  attached  to  the  word,  must  signify  an  inequality, 
an  ill  balance  of  sentiment,  an  inconsistency  which  leads 
men  into  attacking  one  abuse,  while  they  ignore  or  con- 
done another  where  a  reform  is  equally  desirable.  That 
this  weakness  is  often  observable  among  ^'  philanthro- 
pists "  on  the  one  hand,  and  ''  friends  of  animals"  on 
the  other,  and  most  of  all  among  those  acute  "  men  of 
the  world,"  whose  regard  is  only  for  themselves,  I  am 
not  concerned  to  deny ;  what  I  wish  to  point  out  is, 
that  the  only  real  safeguard  against  sentimentality  is  to 
take  up  a  consistent  position  towards  the  rights  of  men 
and  of  the  lower  animals  alike,  and  to  cultivate  a  broad 
sense  of  universal  justice  (not  "  mercy  ")  for  all  living 
things.  Herein,  and  herein  alone,  is  to  be  sought  the 
true  sanity  of  temperament. 

It  is  an  entire  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  rights  of  ^ 
animals  are  in  any  way  antagonistic  to  the  rights  of  ; 
men.  Let  us  not  be  betrayed  for  a  moment  into  the 
specious  fallacy  that  we  must  study  human  rights  first, 
and  leave  the  animal  question  to  solve  itself  hereafter  ; 
for  it  is  only  by  a  wide  and  disinterested  study  of  both 
subjects  that  a  solution  of  either  is  possible.  ^'  For  he 
who  loves  all  animated  nature,"  says  Porphyry,  "will 
not  hate  any  one  tribe  of  innocent  beings,  and  by  how 

The  precise  nature  of  the  means  employed  and  ends  attained  must 
be  carefully  considered  when  we  seek  from  the  records  of  animal 
evolution  support  or  justification  for  human  conduct." 


22  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

much  greater  his  love  for  the  whole,  by  so  much  the 
more  will  he  cultivate  justice  towards  a  part  of  them, 
and  that  part  to  which  he  is  most  allied."  To  omit  all 
worthier  reasons,  it  is  too  late  in  the  day  to  suggest  the 
indefinite  postponement  of  a  consideration  of  animals' 
rights,  for  from  a  moral  point  of  view,  and  even  from  a 
legislative  point  of  view,  we  are  daily  confronted  with 
this  momentous  problem,  and  the  so-called  ''practical  " 
people  who  affect  to  ignore  it  are  simply  shutting  their 
eyes  to  facts  which  they  find  it  disagreeable  to  con- 
front. 

Once  more  then,  animals  have  rights,  and  these 
rights  consist  in  the '' restricted  freedom"  to  Hve  a 
natural  life — a  life,  that  is,  which  permits  of  the  indi- 
vidual development — subject  to  the  limitations  imposed 
by  the  permanent  needs  and  interests  of  the  community. 
There  is  nothing  quixotic  or  visionary  in  this  assertion ; 
it  is  perfectly  compatible  with  a  readiness  to  look  the 
sternest  laws  of  existence  fully  and  honestly  in  the  face. 
If  we  must  kill,  whether  it  be  man  or  animal,  let  us  kill 
and  have  done  with  it ;  if  we  must  inflict  pain,  let  us 
do  what  is  inevitable,  without  hypocrisy,  or  evasion,  or 
cant.  But  (here  is  the  cardinal  point)  let  us  first  be 
assured  that  it  is  necessary  ;  let  us  not  wantonly  trade 
on  the  needless  miseries  of  other  beings,  and  then  at- 
tempt to  lull  our  consciences  by  a  series  of  shuffling  ex- 
cuses which  cannot  endure  a  moment's  candid  investi- 
gation.    As  Leigh  Hunt  well  says  : 

"  That  there  is  pain  and  evil,  is  no  rule 
That  I  should  make  it  greater,  like  a  fool." 


THE  PRINCIPLE    OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.       23 

Thus  far  of  the  general  principle  of  animals'  rights. 
We  will  now  proceed  to  apply  this  principle  to  a  num- 
ber of  particular  cases,  from  which  we  may  learn  some- 
thing both  as  to  the  extent  of  its  present  violation,  and 
the  possibility  of  its  better  observance  in  the  future. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE    CASE    OF    DOMESTIC    ANIMALS. 

The  main  principle  of  animals'  rights,  if  admitted  to 
be  fundamentally  sound,  will  not  be  essentially  affected 
by  the  wildness  or  the  domesticity,  as  the  case  may  be, 
of  the  animals  in  question  ;  both  classes  have  their  rights, 
though  these  rights  may  differ  largely  in  extent  and  im- 
portance. It  is  convenient,  however,  to  consider  the 
subject  of  the  domestic  animals  apart  from  that  of  the 
wild  ones,  inasmuch  as  their  whole  relation  to  mankind 
is  so  much  altered  and  emphasized  by  the  fact  of  their 
subjection.  Here,  at  any  rate,  it  is  impossible,  even  for 
the  most  callous  reasoners,  to  deny  the  responsibility  of 
man,  in  his  dealings  with  vast  races  of  beings,  the  very 
conditions  of  whose  existence  have  been  modified  by 
human  civilization. 

An  incalculable  mass  of  drudgery,  at  the  cost  of  incal- 
culable suffering,  is  daily,  hourly  performed  for  the  bene- 
fit of  man  by  these  honest,  patient  labourers  in  every 
town  and  country  of  the  world.  Are  these  countless 
services  to  be  permanently  ignored  in  a  community 
which  makes  any  pretension  to  a  humane  civilization  ? 
Will  the  free  citizens  of  the  enlightened  republics  of  the 
future  be  content  to  reap  the  immense  advantages  of 


THE    CASE    OF  DOMESTIC  ANIMALS.  25 

animals'  labour,  without  recognizing  that  they  owe  them 
some  consideration  in  return  ?  The  question  is  one  that 
carries  with  it  its  own  answer.  Even  now  it  is  nowhere 
openly  contended  that  domestic  animals  have  no  rights. ^ 

But  the  human  mind  is  subtle  to  evade  the  full  sig- 
nificance of  its  duties,  and  nowhere  is  this  more  con- 
spicuously seen  than  in  our  treatment  of  the  lower  races. 
Given  a  position  in  which  man  profits  largely  (or  thinks 
he  profits  largely,  for  it  is  not  always  a  matter  of  cer- 
tainty) by  the  toil  or  suffering  of  the  animals,  and  our 
respectable  moralists  are  pretty  sure  to  be  explaining  to 
us  that  this  providential  arrangement  is  ' '  better  for  the 
animals  themselves. ' '  The  wish  is  father  to  the  thought 
in  these  questions,  and  there  is  an  accommodating  elas- 
ticity in  our  social  ethics  that  permits  of  the  justification 
of  almost  any  system  which  it  would  be  inconvenient  to 
us  to  discontinue.  Thus  we  find  it  stated,  and  on  the 
authority  of  a  bishop,  that  man  may  "lay  down  the 
terms  of  the  social  contract  between  animals  and  him- 
self," because,  forsooth,  "the  general  life  of  a  domestic 
animal  is  one  of  very  great  comfort — according  to  the 
animal's  own  standard  {sic)  probably  one  of  almost  per- 
fect happiness."  ^ 

Now  this  prating  about  "  the  animal's  own  standard  " 
is  nothing  better  than  hypocritical  cant.  If  man  is 
obliged  to  lay  down  the  terms  of  the  contract,  let  him 

^  Auguste  Comte  included  the  domestic  animals  as  an  organic 
part  of  the  Positivist  conception  of  humanity. 

■■*  "Moral  Duty  towards  Animals,"  "  Macmillan's  Magazine," 
April,  1882,  by  the  then  Bishop  of  Carlisle. 


26  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

at  least  do  so  without  having  recourse  to  such  a  sus- 
piciously opportune  afterthought.  We  have  taken  the 
animals  from  a  free,  natural  state,  into  an  artificial 
thraldom,  in  order  that  we,  and  not  they,  may  be  the 
gainers  thereby ;  it  cannot  possibly  be  maintained  that 
they  owe  us  gratitude  on  this  account,  or  that  this 
alleged  debt  may  be  used  as  a  means  of  evading  the 
just  recognition  of  their  rights.  It  is  the  more  necessary 
to  raise  a  strong  protest  against  this  Jesuitical  mode  of 
reasoning,  because,  as  we  shall  see,  it  is  so  frequently 
employed  in  one  form  or  another  by  the  apologists  of 
human  tyranny. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  desire  to  keep  clear  also  of  the 
extreme  contrary  contention,  that  man  is  not  morally 
justified  in  imposing  any  sort  of  subjection  on  the  lower 
animals.  1  An  abstract  question  of  this  sort,  however 
interesting  as  a  speculation,  and  impossible  in  itself  to 
disprove,  is  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present  inquiry, 
which  is  primarily  concerned  with  the  state  of  things  at 
present  existing.  We  must  face  the  fact  that  the  ser- 
vices of  domestic  animals  have  become,  whether  rightly 
or  wrongly,  an  integral  portion  of  the  system  of  modern 
society ;  we  cannot  immediately  dispense  with  those 
services,  any  more  than  we  can  dispense  with  human 
labour  itself.      But  we  can  provide,  as  at  least  a  present 

^  See  Lewis  Gompertz'  "Moral  Inquiries"  (1824),  where  it  is 
argued  that  "  at  least  in  the  present  state  of  society  it  is  unjust, 
and  considering  the  unnecessary  abuse  they  suffer  from  being  in 
the  power  of  man,  it  is  wrong  to  use  them,  and  to  encourage  their 
being  placed  in  his  power." 


THE   CASE    OE  DOMESTIC  ANIMALS,         2/ 

Step  towards  a  more  ideal  relationship  in  the  future,  that 
the  conditions  under  which  all  labour  is  performed, 
whether  by  men  or  by  animals,  shall  be  such  as  to  en- 
able the  worker  to  take  some  appreciable  pleasure  in  the 
work,  instead  of  experiencing  a  lifelong  course  of  injus- 
tice and  ill-treatment. 

And  here  it  may  be  convenient  to  say  a  word  as  to 
the  existing  line  of  demarcation  between  the  animals 
legally  recognized  as  *' domestic,"  and  those /^r<^  na- 
tiii^cB,  of  wild  nature.  In  the  Act  of  1849,  i^  which  a 
penalty  is  imposed  for  cruelty  to  ''any  animal,"  it  is 
expressly  provided  that  "  the  word  aiti?fial  ^hdX\  be  taken 
to  mean  any  horse,  mare,  gelding,  bull,  ox,  cow,  heifer, 
steer,  calf,  mule,  ass,  sheep,  lamb,  hog,  pig,  sow,  goat, 
dog,  cat,  or  any  other  domestic  animal."  It  will  be 
shown  in  a  later  chapter  that  the  interpretation  of  this 
vague  reference  to  ''any  other"  domestic  animal  is 
likely  to  become  a  point  of  considerable  importance 
since  it  closely  affects  the  welfare  of  certain  animals 
which,  though  at  present  regarded  as  wild,  and  therefore 
outside  the  pale  of  protection,  are  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  in  a  state  of  domestication.  For  the  present, 
however,  we  may  group  the  domestic  animals  of  this 
country  in  three  main  divisions,  (i)  horses,  asses,  and 
mules;  (2)  oxen,  sheep,  goats,  and  pigs  ;  (3)  dogs  and 
cats. 

"  Food,  rest,  and  tender  usage,"  are  declared  by 
Humphry  Primatt,  the  old  author  already  quoted,  to  be 
the  three  rights  of  the  domestic  animals.  Lawrence's 
opinion  is  to  much  the  same  effect.      "  Man  is  indis- 


28  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

pensably  bound,"  he  thinks,  ''to  bestow  upon  animals, 
in  return  for  the  benefit  he  derives  from  their  services, 
good  and  sufficient  nourishment,  comfortable  shelter, 
and  merciful  treatment  ;  to  commit  no  wanton  outrage 
upon  their  feelings,  whilst  alive,  and  to  put  them  to  the 
speediest  and  least  painful  death,  when  it  shall  be  neces- 
sary to  deprive  them  of  life."  But  it  is  important  to 
note  that  something  more  is  due  to  animals,  and  espe- 
cially to  domestic  animals,  than  the  mere  supply  of  prov- 
ender and  the  mere  immunity  from  ill-usage.  "  We 
owe  justice  to  men,"  wrote  Montaigne,  ''  and  grace  and 
benignity  to  other  creatures  that  are  capable  of  it ;  there 
is  a  natural  commerce  and  mutual  obligation  betwixt 
them  and  us."  Sir  Arthur  Helps  admirably  expressed 
this  sentiment  in  his  well-known  reference  to  the  duty  of 
*'  using  courtesy  to  animals."  ^ 

If  these  be  the  rights  of  domestic  animals,  it  is  pitiful 
to  reflect  how  commonly  and  how  grossly  they  are  vio- 
lated. The  average  life  of  our  ''  beasts  of  burden,"  the 
horse,  the  ass,  and  the  mule,  is  from  beginning  to  end  a 
rude  negation  of  their  individuality  and  intelligence  ; 
they  are  habitually  addressed  and  treated  as  stupid  in- 
struments of  man's  will  and  pleasure,  instead  of  the 
highly-organized  and  sensitive  beings  that  they  are. 
Well  might  Thoreau,  the  humanest  and  most  observ- 
ant of  naturalists,  complain  of  man's  "  not  educating 
the  horse,  not  trying  to  develop  his  nature,  but  mere- 
ly getting  work  out  of  him;  "  for  such,  it  must  be 
acknowledged,  is  the  prevalent  method  of  treatment, 
^  "  Animals  and  their  Masters,"  p.  loi. 


THE   CASE    OF  DOMESTIC  ANIMALS.         29 

in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred,  at  the  pres- 
ent day,  even  where  there  is  no  actual  cruelty  or  ill- 
usage.^ 

We  are  often  told  that  there  is  no  other  western 
country  where  tame  animals  are  so  well  treated  as  in 
England,  and  it  is  only  necessary  to  read  the  records  of 
a  century  back  to  see  that  the  inhumanities  of  the  past 
were  far  more  atrocious  than  any  that  are  still  practised 
in  the  present.  Let  us  be  thankful  for  these  facts,  as 
showing  that  the  current  of  English  opinion  is  at  least 
moving  in  the  right  direction.  But  it  must  yet  be  said 
that  the  sights  that  everywhere  meet  the  eye  of  a 
humane  and  thoughtful  observer,  whether  in  town  or 
country,  are  a  disgrace  to  our  vaunted  '^  civiUzation," 
and  suggest  the  thought  that,  as  far  as  the  touch  of 
compassion  is  concerned,  the  majority  of  our  fellow- 
citizens  must  be  obtuse,  not  to  say  pachydermatous. 
Watch  the  cab  traffic  in  one  of  the  crowded  thorough- 
fares of  one  of  our  great  cities — always  the  same  lugu- 
brious patient  procession  of  underfed  overloaded  an- 
imals, the  same  brutal  insolence  of  the  drivers,  the  same 
accursed  sound  of  the  whip.  And  remembering  that 
these  horses  are  gifted  with  a  large  degree  of  sensibility 

^  The  representative  of  an  English  paper  lately  had  a  drive 
with  Count  Tolstoi.  On  his  remarking  that  he  had  no  whip,  the 
Count  gave  him  a  glance  "  almost  of  scorn,"  and  said,  "  I  talk  to 
my  horses  ;  I  do  not  beat  them."  That  this  story  should  have 
gone  the  round  of  the  press,  as  a  sort  of  marvellous  legend  of  a 
second  St.  Francis,  is  a  striking  comment  on  the  existing  state  of 
affairs. 


30  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

and  intelligence,  must  one  not  feel  that  the  fate  to 
which  they  are  thus  mercilessly  subjected  is  a  shameful 
violation  of  the  principle  which  moralists  have  laid 
down? 

Yet  it  is  to  this  fate  that  even  the  well-kept  horses  of 
the  rich  must  in  time  descend,  so  to  pass  the  declining 
years  of  a  life  devoted  to  man's  service!  ''A  good 
man,"  said  Plutarch,  ''  will  take  care  of  his  horses  and 
dogs,  not  only  while  they  are  young,  but  when  old  and 
past  service.  We  ought  certainly  not  to  treat  living 
beings  like  shoes  and  household  goods,  which,  when 
worn  out  with  use,  we  throw  away."  Such  was  the 
feeling  of  the  old  pagan  writer,  and  our  good  Christians 
of  the  present  age  scarcely  seem  to  have  improved  on  it. 
True,  they  do  not  '  '■  throw  away  ' '  their  superannuated 
carriage-horses — it  is  so  much  more  lucrative  to  sell 
them  to  the  shopman  or  cab-proprietor,  who  will  in 
due  course  pass  them  on  to  the  knacker  and  cat's-meat 
man. 

The  use  of  machinery  is  often  condemned,  on  aesthe- 
tic grounds,  because  of  the  ugliness  it  has  introduced 
into  so  many  features  of  modern  life.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  it  has  immensely 
relieved  the  huge  mass  of  animal  labour,  and  that  when 
electricity  is  generally  used  for  purposes  of  traction,  one 
of  the  foulest  blots  on  our  social  humanity  is  likely  to 
disappear.  Scientific  and  mechanical  invention,  so  far 
from  being  necessarily  antagonistic  to  a  true  beauty  of 
life,  may  be  found  to  be  of  the  utmost  service  to  it, 
when  they  are  employed  for  humane,  and  not  merely 


THE   CASE    OF  DOMESTIC  ANIMALS.         3 1 

commercial,  purposes.  Herein  Thoreau  is  a  wiser 
teacher  than  Ruskin.  '' If  all  were  as  it  seems,"  he 
says,^  "  and  men  made  the  elements  their  servants 
for  noble  ends  !  If  the  cloud  that  hangs  over  the  en- 
gine were  the  perspiration  of  heroic  deeds,  or  as  be- 
neficent as  that  which  floats  over  the  farmer's  fields, 
then  the  elements  and  Nature  herself  would  cheer- 
fully accompany  men  on  their  errands  and  be  their 
escort." 

It  is  no  part  of  my  purpose  to  enumerate  the  various 
acts  of  injustice  of  which  domestic  animals  are  the 
victims  ;  it  is  sufficient  to  point  out  that  the  true  cause 
of  such  injustice  is  to  be  sought  in  the  unwarrantable 
neglect  of  their  many  intelligent  qualities,  and  in  the 
contemptuous  indifference  which,  in  defiance  of  sense 
and  reason,  still  classes  them  as  ^'  brute-beasts."  What 
has  been  said  of  horses  in  this  respect  applies  still  more 
strongly  to  the  second  class  of  domestic  animals.  Sheep, 
goats,  and  oxen  are  regarded  as  mere  ' '  live-stock ; ' ' 
while  pigs,  poultry,  rabbits,  and  other  marketable 
''farm-produce,"  meet  with  even  less  consideration, 
and  are  constantly  treated  with  very  brutal  inhumanity 
by  their  human  possessors.^  Let  anyone  who  doubts 
this  pay  a  visit  to  a  cattle-market,  and  study  the  scenes 
that  are  enacted  there. 

The  question  of  the  castration  of  animals  may  here 
be   briefly  referred    to.     That  nothing  but  imperative 

1  "  Walden." 

^  Further  remarks  on  this  subject  belong  more  properly  to  the 
Food  Question,  which  is  treated  in  Chapter  IV. 


32  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

necessity  could  justify  such  a  practice  must  I  think  be 
admitted ;  for  an  unnatural  mutilation  of  this  kind  is 
not  only  gainful  in  itself,  but  deprives  those  who  un- 
dergo it  of  the  most  vigorous  and  spirited  elements  of 
their  character.  It  is  said — with  what  precise  amount  of 
truth  I  cannot  pretend  to  determine — that  man  would 
not  otherwise  be  able  to  maintain  his  dominion  over  the 
domestic  animals;  but  on  the  other  hand  it  may  be 
pointed  out  that  this  dominion  is  in  no  case  destined  to 
be  perpetuated  in  its  present  sharply-accentuated  form, 
and  that  various  practices  which,  in  a  sense,  are  ''  neces- 
sary" now, — /.<?.,  in  the  false  position  and  relationship 
in  which  we  stand  towards  the  animals, — will  doubtless 
be  gradually  discontinued  under  the  humaner  system  of 
the  future.  Moreover,  castration  as  performed  on  cat- 
tle, sheep,  pigs,  and  fowls,  with  no  better  object  than 
to  increase  their  size  and  improve  their  flavour  for  the 
table,  is,  even  at  the  present  time,  utterly  needless  and 
unjustifiable.  ^^  The  bull,"  as  Shelley  says,  ''  must  be 
degraded  into  the  ox,  and  the  ram  into  the  wether,  by 
an  unnatural  and  inhuman  operation,  that  the  flaccid 
fibre  may  offer  a  fainter  resistance  to  rebellious  nature." 
In  all  its  aspects,  this  is  a  disagreeable  subject,  and  one 
about  which  the  majority  of  people  do  not  care  to 
think — probably  from  an  unconscious  perception  that 
the  established  custom  could  scarcely  survive  the  critical 
•^ordeal  of  thought. 

There  remains  one  other  class  of  domestic  animals, 
viz.,  those  who  have  become  still  more  closely  associated 
with  mankind  through  being  the  inmates  of  their  homes. 


THE    CASE    OF  DOMESTIC  ANIMALS.  33 

The  dog  is  probably  better  treated  on  the  whole  than 
any  other  animal ;  ^  though  to  prove  how  far  we  still 
are  from  a  rational  and  consistent  appreciation  of  his 
worth,  it  is  only  necessary  to  point  to  the  fact  that  he 
is  commonly  regarded  by  a  large  number  of  educated 
people  as  a  fit  and  proper  subject  for  that  experimental 
torture  which  is  known  as  vivisection.  The  cat  has 
always  been  treated  with  far  less  consideration  than  the 
dog,  and,  despite  the  numerous  scattered  instances  that 
might  be  cited  to  the  contrary,  it  is  to  be  feared  that  De 
Quincey  was  in  the  main  correct,  when  he  remarked 
that  "the  groans  and  screams  of  this  poor  persecuted 
race,  if  gathered  into  some  great  echoing  hall  of  hor- 
rors, would  melt  the  heart  of  the  stoniest  of  our  race." 
The  institution  of  "Homes"  for  lost  and  starving 
dogs  and  cats  is  a  welcome  sign  of  the  humane  feeling 
that  is  asserting  itself  in  some  quarters ;  but  it  is  also 
no  less  a  proof  of  the  general  indifferentism  which  can 
allow  the  most  familiar  domestic  animals  to  become 
homeless. 

It  may  be  doubted,  indeed,  whether  the  condition  of 
the  household  "  pet  "  is,  in  the  long  run,  more  enviable 
than  that  of  the  "beast  of  burden."  Pets,  like  kings' 
favourites,  are  usually  the  recipients  of  an  abundance 
of  sentimental  affection  but  of  little  real  kindness ;  so 
much  easier  it  is  to  give  temporary  caresses  than  substan- 
tial justice.    It  seems  to  be  forgotten,  in  a  vast  majority  of 

^  The  use  of  dogs  for  the  purposes  of  draught  was  prohibited  in 
London  in  1839,  ^'^^  i^"^  1^54  ^^^^  enactment  was  extended  to  the 
whole  kingdom. 

3 


34  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

cases,  that  a  domestic  animal  does  not  exist  for  the  mere 
idle  amusement,  any  more  than  for  the  mere  com- 
mercial profit,  of  its  human  owner ;  and  that  for  a 
living  being  to  be  turned  into  a  useless  puppet  is  only 
one  degree  better  than  to  be  doomed  to  the  servitude  of 
a  drudge.  The  injustice  done  to  the  pampered  lap- 
dog  is  as  conspicuous,  in  its  way,  as  that  done  to  the 
over-worked  horse,  and  both  spring  from  one  and  the 
same  origin — the  fixed  belief  that  the  life  of  a  ^'  brute  " 
has  no  ''moral  purpose,"  no  distinctive  personality 
worthy  of  due  consideration  and  development.  In  a 
society  where  the  lower  animals  were  regarded  as  in- 
telhgent  beings,  and  not  as  animated  machines,  it  would 
be  impossible  for  this  incongruous  absurdity  to  con- 
tinue. 

This,  then,  appears  to  be  our  position  as  regards  the 
rights  of  domestic  animals.  Waiving,  on  the  one  hand, 
the  somewhat  abstruse  question  whether  man  is  morally 
justified  in  utilizing  animal  labour  at  all,  and  on  the  other 
the  fatuous  assertion  that  he  is  constituting  himself  a 
benefactor  by  so  doing,  we  recognize  that  the  services  of 
domestic  animals  have,  by  immemorial  usage,  become 
an  important  and,  it  may  even  be  said,  necessary  element 
in  the  economy  of  modern  life.  It  is  impossible,  unless 
every  principle  of  justice  is  to  be  cast  to  the  winds,  that 
the  due  requital  of  these  services  should  remain  a  matter 
of  personal  caprice ;  for  slavery  is  at  all  times  hateful 
and  iniquitous,  whether  it  be  imposed  on  mankind  or  on 
the  lower  races. 

Apart  from  the  universal  rights  they  jDossess  in  com- 


THE    CASE    OF  DOMESTIC  ANIMALS.  35 

mon  with  all  intelligent  beings,  domestic  animals  have 
a  special  claim  on  man's  courtesy  and  sense  of  fairness, 
inasmuch  as  they  are  not  his  fellow -creatures  only,  but 
his  fellow- workers,  his  dependents,  and  in  many  cases 
the  familiar  associates  and  trusted  inmates  of  his  home^ 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   CASE    OF   WILD    ANIMALS. 

That  wild  animals,  no  less  than  domestic  animals, 
have  their  rights,  albeit  of  a  less  positive  character  and 
far  less  easy  to  define,  is  an  essential  point  which  fol- 
lows directly  from  the  acceptance  of  the  general  prin- 
ciple of  a  jus  animaliimi.  It  is  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tance to  emphasize  the  fact  that,  whatever  the  legal  fiction 
may  have  been,  or  may  still  be,  the  rights  of  animals 
are  not  morally  dependent  on  the  so-called  rights  of 
property  ;  it  is  not  to  owned  animals  merely  that  we 
must  extend  our  sympathy  and  protection. 

The  domination  of  property  has  left  its  trail  indelibly 
on  the  records  of  this  question.  Until  the  passing  of 
*' Martin's  Act"  in  1822,  the  most  atrocious  cruelty, 
even  to  domestic  animals,  could  only  be  punished  where 
there  was  proved  to  be  an  infringement  of  the  rights 
of  ownership.^  This  monstrous  iniquity,  so  far  as  re- 
lates to  the  domestic  animals,  has  now  been  removed ; 
but  the  only  direct  legal  protection  yet  accorded  to  wild 
animals  (except  in  the  Wild  Birds'  Protection  Act  of 
1880)  is  that    which  prohibits  their    being    baited    or 

^  See  the  excellent  remarks  on  this  subject  in  Mr.  E.  B.  Nichol- 
son's "  The  Rights  of  an  Animal  "  (ch.  III.). 


THE    CASE    OF    WILD  ANIMALS.  37 

pitted  in  conflict ;  otherwise,  it  is  open  for  anyone  to 
kill  or  torture  them  with  impunity,  except  where  the 
sacred  privileges  of  '^  property  "  are  thereby  offended. 
''  Everywhere,"  it  has  been  well  said,  ''it  is  absolutely 
a  capital  crime  to  be  an  unowned  creature." 

Yet  surely  an  unowned  creature  has  the  same  right 
as  another  to  live  his  life  unmolested  and  uninjured  ex- 
cept when  this  is  in  some  way  inimical  to  human  wel- 
fare. We  are  justified  by  the  strongest  of  all  instincts, 
that  of  self-defence,  iii  safe-guarding  ourselves  against 
such  a  multiplication  of  any  species  of  animal  as  might 
imj3eril  the  established  supremacy  of  man  ;  but  we  are 
not  justified  in  unnecessarily  killing — still  less  in  tortur- 
ing— any  harmless  beings  whatsoever.  In  this  respect 
the  position  of  wild  animals,  in  their  relation  to  man, 
is  somewhat  analogous  to  that  of  the  uncivilized  towards 
the  civilized  nations.  Nothing  is  more  difficult  than  to 
determine  precisely  to  what  extent  it  is  morally  per- 
missible to  interfere  with  the  autonomy  of  savage  tribes 
— an  interference  which  seems  in  some  cases  to  conduce 
to  the  general  progress  of  the  race,  in  others  to  foster  the 
worst  forms  of  cruelty  and  injustice ;  but  it  is  beyond 
question  that  savages,  like  other  people,  have  the  right 
to  be  exempt  from  all  wanton  insult  and  degradation. 

In  the  same  way,  while  admitting  that  man  is  justified, 
by  the  exigencies  of  his  own  destiny,  in  asserting  his 
supremacy  over  the  wild  animals,  we  must  deny  him  any 
right  to  turn  his  protectorate  into  a  tyranny,  or  to  inflict 
one  atom  more  of  subjection  and  pain  than  is  absolutely 
unavoidable.     To  take  advantage  of  the  sufferings   of 


38  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

animals,  whether  wild  or  tame,  for  the  gratification  of 
sport,  or  gluttony,  or  fashion,  is  quite  incompatible  with 
any  possible  assertion  of  animals'  rights.  We  may  kill, 
if  necessary,  but  never  torture  or  degrade. 

"The  laws  of  self-defence,"  says  an  old  writer,^ 
**  undoubtedly  justify  us  in  destroying  those  animals  who 
would  destroy  us,  who  injure  our  properties  or  annoy  our 
persons ;  but  not  even  these,  whenever  their  situation 
incapacitates  them  from  hurting  us.  I  know  of  no  right 
which  we  have  to  shoot  a  bear  on  an  inaccessible  island  of 
ice,  or  an  eagle  on  the  mountain's  top,  whose  lives  can- 
not injure  us,  nor  deaths  procure  us  any  benefit.  We  are 
unable  to  give  life,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  take  it  away 
from  the  meanest  insect  without  sufficient  reason." 

I  reserve,  for  fuller  consideration  in  subsequent  chap- 
ters, certain  problems  which  are  suggested  by  the  whole- 
sale slaughter  of  wild  animals  by  the  huntsman  or  the 
trapper,  for  purposes  which  are  loosely  supposed  to  be 
necessary  and  inevitable.  Meantime  a  word  must  be 
said  about  the  condition  of  those  tamed  or  caged  ani- 
mals which,  though  wild  by  nature,  and  not  bred  in 
captivity,  are  yet  to  a  certain  extent  "  domesticated  " 
— a  class  which  stands  midway  between  the  true  do- 
mestic and  the  wild.  Is  the  imprisonment  of  such  ani- 
mals a  violation  of  the  principle  we  have  laid  down  ? 
In  most  cases  I  fear  this  question  can  only  be  answered 
in  the  affirmative. 

And  here,  once  more  I  must  protest  against  the  com- 

'  "  On  Cruelty  to  the  Inferior  Animals,"  by  Soame  Jenyns, 
1782. 


THE   CASE    OF   WILD  ANIMALS.  39 

mon  assumption  that  these  captive  animals  are  laid  under 
an  obligation  to  man  by  the  very  fact  of  their  captivity, 
and  that  therefore  no  complaint  can  be  made  on  the 
score  of  their  loss  of  freedom  and  the  many  miseries  in- 
volved therein  !  It  is  extraordinary  that  even  humane 
thinkers  and  earnest  champions  of  animals'  rights,  should 
permit  themselves  to  be  misled  by  this  most  fallacious 
and  flimsy  line  of  argument.  ''  Harmful  animals,"  says 
one  of  these  writers,^  "  and  animals  with  whom  man  has 
to  struggle  for  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  may  of  course  be 
so  shut  up  :  they  gain  by  it,  for  otherwise  they  would 
not  have  been  let  live. ' ' 

And  so  in  like  manner  it  is  sometimes  contended  that 
a  menagerie  is  a  sort  of  paradise  for  wild  beasts,  whose 
loss  of  liberty  is  more  than  compensated  by  the  absence 
of  the  constant  apprehension  and  insecurity  which,  it  is 
conveniently  assumed,  weigh  so  heavily  on  their  spirits. 
But  all  this  notion  of  their  "  gaining  by  it  "  is  in  truth 
nothing  more  than  a  mere  arbitrary  supposition  ;  for,  in 
the  first  place,  a  speedy  death  may,  for  all  we  know,  be 
very  preferable  to  a  protracted  death-in-life  ;  while,  sec- 
ondly, the  pretence  that  wild  animals  enjoy  captivity  is 
even  more  absurd  than  the  episcopal  contention^  that  the 
life  of  a  domestic  animal  is  '•^  one  of  very  great  comfort, 
according  to  the  animal's  own  standard." 

To  take  a  wild  animal  from  its  free  natural  state,  full 

of  abounding  egoism  and  vitality,  and  to  shut  it  up  for 

the  wretched  remainder  of  its  life  in  a  cell  where  it  has 

just  space  to  turn  round,  and  where  it  necessarily  loses 

^  Mr.  E.  B.  Nicholson.  ^  See  p.  25. 


40  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

every  distinctive  feature  of  its  character — this  appears 
to  me  to  be  as  downright  a  denial  as  could  well  be 
imagined  of  the  theory  of  animals'  rights.  ^  Nor  is  there 
very  much  force  in  the  plea  founded  on  the  alleged  sci- 
entific value  of  these  zoological  institutions,  at  any  rate 
in  the  case  of  the  wilder  and  less  tractable  animals,  for  it 
cannot  be  maintained  that  the  establishment  of  wild- 
beast  shows  is  in  any  way  necessary  for  the  advancement 
of  human  knowledge.  For  what  do  the  good  people  see 
who  go  to  the  gardens  on  a  half-holiday  afternoon  to 
poke  their  umbrellas  at  a  blinking  eagle-owl,  or  to  throw 
dog-biscuits  down  the  expansive  throat  of  a  hippopota- 
mus ?  Not  wild  beasts  or  wild  birds  certainly,  for  there 
never  have  been  or  can  be  such  in  the  best  of  all  possible 
menageries,  but  merely  the  outer  semblances  and  simu- 
lacra of  the  denizens  of  forest  and  prairie — poor  spiritless 
remnants  of  what  were  formerly  wild  animals.  To  kill 
and  stuff  these  victims  of  our  morbid  curiosity,  instead 
of  immuring  them  in  lifelong  imprisonment,  would  be  at 
once  a  humaner  and  a  cheaper  method,  and  could  not 
possibly  be  of  less  use  to  science.^ 

'  I  subjoin  a  sentence,  copied  by  me  from  one  of  the  note-books 
of  the  late  James  Thomson  ("  B.V.")  :  "It  being  a  very  wet  Sun- 
day, I  had  to  keep  in,  and  paced  much  prisoner-like  to  and  fro  my 
room.  This  reminded  me  of  the  wild  beasts  at  Regent's  Park, 
and  especially  of  the  great  wild  birds,  the  vultures  and  eagles. 
How  they  must  suffer  !  How  long  will  it  be  ere  the  thought  of 
such  agonies  becomes  intolerable  to  the  public  conscience,  and  wild 
creatures  be  left  at  liberty  when  they  need  not  be  killed  ?  Three 
or  four  centuries,  perhaps." 

'  Unfortunately  they  are  not  of  much  value  even  for  that  pur- 


THE   CASE    OF    WILD  ANIMALS.  4 1 

But  of  course  these  remarks  do  not  apply,  with  any- 
thing Uke  the  same  force,  to  the  taming  of  such  wild 
animals  as  are  readily  domesticated  in  captivity,  or 
trained  by  man  to  some  intelligible  and  practical  pur- 
pose. For  example,  though  we  may  look  forward  to  the 
time  when  it  will  not  be  deemed  necessary  to  convert 
wild  elephants  into  beasts  of  burden,  it  must  be  acknowl- 
edged that  the  exaction  of  such  service,  however  ques- 
tionable in  itself,  is  very  different  from  condemning  an 
animal  to  a  long  term,  of  useless  and  deadening  imbecil- 
ity. There  can  be  no  absolute  standard  of  morals  in 
these  matters,  whether  it  be  human  liberty  or  animal  lib- 
erty that  is  at  stake ;  I  merely  contend  that  it  is  as  in- 
cumbent on  us  to  show  good  reason  for  curtailing  the 
one  as  the  other.  This  would  be  at  once  recognised, 
but  for  the  prevalent  habit  of  regarding  the  lower  ani- 
mals as  devoid  of  moral  purpose  and  individuality. 

The  caging  of  wild  song-birds  is  another  practice 
which  deserves  the  strongest  reprobation.  It  is  often 
pleaded  that  the  amusement  given  by  these  unfortunate 
prisoners  to  the  still  more  unfortunate  human  prisoners 
of  the  sick-room,  or  the  smoky  city,  is  a  justification  for 
their  sacrifice  ;  but  surely  such  excuses  rest  only  on 
habit — habitual  inability  or  unwillingness  to  look  facts 

pose,  owing-  to  the  deterioration  of  health  and  vigour  caused  by 
their  imprisonment.  "The  skeletons  of  aged  carnivora,"  says 
Dr.  W.  B.  Carpenter,  "are  often  good  for  nothing  as  museum 
specimens,  their  bones  being  rickety  and  distorted."  Could  there 
be  a  more  convincing  proof  than  this  of  the  inhumanity  of  these 
exhibitions  ? 


42  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

in  the  face.  Few  invalids,  I  fancy,  would  be  greatly 
cheered  by  the  captive  life  that  hangs  at  their  window, 
if  they  had  fully  considered  how  blighted  and  sterilized 
a  life  it  must  be.  The  bird-catcher's  trade  and  the 
bird-catcher's  shop  are  alike  full  of  horrors,  and  they 
are  horrors  which  are  due  entirely  to  a  silly  fashion  and 
a  habit  of  callous  thoughtlessness,  not  on  the  part  of  the 
ruffianly  bird-catcher  (ruffianly  enough,  too  often,)  who 
has  to  bear  the  burden  of  the  odium  attaching  to  these 
cruelties,  but  of  the  respectable  customers  who  buy  capt- 
ured larks  and  linnets  without  the  smallest  scruple  or 
consideration. 

Finally,  let  me  point  out  that  if  we  desire  to  cultivate 
a  closer  intimacy  with  the  wild  animals,  it  must  be  an 
intimacy  based  on  a  genuine  love  for  them  as  living 
beings  and  fellow -creatures,  not  on  the  superior  power 
or  cunning  by  which  we  can  drag  them  from  their 
native  haunts,  warp  the  whole  purpose  of  their  lives, 
and  degrade  them  to  the  level  of  pets,  or  curiosities,  or 
labour-saving  automata.  The  key  to  a  proper  under- 
standing of  the  wild,  as  of  the  tame,  animals  must  al- 
ways lie  in  such  sympathies — sympathies,  as  Wordsworth 
describes  them, 

"  Aloft  ascending,  and  descending  deep, 

Even  to  the  inferior  Kinds  ;  whom  forest  trees 

Protect  from  beating  sunbeams  and  tlie  sweep 

Of  the  sharp  winds  ;  fair  Creatures,  to  whom  Heaven 

A  calm  and  sinless  life,  with  love,  has  given." 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE    SLAUGHTER    OF    ANIMALS    FOR    FOOD. 

It  is  impossible  that  any  discussion  of  the  principle  of 
animals'  rights  can  be  at  all  adequate  or  conclusive 
which  ignores,  as  many  so-called  humanitarians  still 
ignore,  the  immense  underlying  importance  of  the  food 
question.  The  origin  of  the  habit  of  flesh-eating  need 
not  greatly  concern  us ;  let  us  assume,  in  accordance 
with  the  most  favoured  theory,  that  animals  were  first 
slaughtered  by  the  uncivilized  migratory  tribes  under 
the  stress  of  want,  and  that  the  practice  thus  engen- 
dered, being  fostered  by  the  religious  idea  of  blood- 
offering  and  propitiation,  survived  and  increased  after 
the  early  conditions  which  produced  it  had  passed 
away.  What  is  more  important  to  note,  is  that  the 
very  prevalence  of  the  habit  has  caused  it  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  necessary  feature  of  modern  civilization, 
and  that  this  view  has  inevitably  had  a  marked  effect, 
and  a  very  detrimental  effect,  on  the  study  of  man's 
moral  relation  to  the  lower  animals. 

Now  it  must  be  admitted,  I  think,  that  it  is  a  difii- 
cult  thing  consistently  to  recognise  or  assert  the  rights 
of  an  animal  on  whom  you  propose  to  make  a  meal,  a 


44  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

difficulty  which  has  not  been  at  all  satisfactorily  sur- 
mounted by  those  moralists  who,  while  accepting  the 
practice  of  flesh-eating  as  an  institution  which  is  itself 
beyond  cavil,  have  nevertheless  been  anxious  to  find 
some  solid  basis  for  a  theory  of  humaneness.  ''  Strange 
contrariety  of  conduct,"  says  Goldsmith's  ''  Chinese 
Philosopher,"  in  commenting  on  this  dilemma;  "  they 
pity,  and  they  eat  the  objects  of  their  compassion  !  " 
There  is  also  the  further  consideration  that  the  sanction 
implicitly  given  to  the  terrible  cruelties  inflicted  on 
harmless  cattle  by  the  drover  and  the  slaughterman  ren- 
der it,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  well-nigh  impossible  to 
abolish  many  other  acts  of  injustice  that  we  see  every- 
where around  us;  and  this  obstacle  the  opponents  of 
humanitarian  reform  have  not  been  slow  to  utilise.^ 
Hence  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  many  otherwise 
humane  writers  to  fight  shy  of  the  awkward  subject  of 
the  slaughterhouse,  or  to  gloss  it  over  with  a  series  of 
contradictory  and  quite  irrelevant  excuses.- 

Let  me  give  a  few  examples.  '^  We  deprive  animals 
of  life,"  says  Bentham,  in  a  delightfully  naive  applica- 

^  Here  are  two  instances  urged  on  behalf  of  the  vivisector  and 
the  sportsman  respectively.  "  If  man  can  legitimately  put  animals 
to  a  painful  death  in  order  to  supply  himself  with  food  and  luxu- 
ries, why  may  he  not  also  legitimately  put  them  to  pain,  and  even 
to  death,  for  the  higher  object  of  relieving  the  sufferings  of  hu- 
manity ?  " — Chambers  s  Eiicyclopcedia^  1884. 

"  If  they  were  called  upon  to  put  an  end  to  pigeon-shooting, 
they  might  next  be  called  upon  to  put  an  end  to  the  slaughter  of 
live-stock."  —  Lord  Fortescue,  Debate  on  Pigeon-  Shooting 
(1884). 


THE   SLAUGHTER    OF  ANIMALS  FOR   FOOD.      45 

tion  of  the  utilitarian  philosophy,  '^  and  this  is  justifi- 
able ;  their  pains  do  not  equal  our  enjoyments." 

"  By  the  scheme  of  universal  providence,"  says  Law- 
rence, ''  the  services  between  man  and  beast  are  in- 
tended to  be  reciprocal,  and  the  greater  part  of  the 
latter  can  by  no  other  means  requite  human  labour  and 
care  than  by  the  forfeiture  of  life." 

Schopenhauer's  plea  is  somewhat  similar  to  the  fore- 
going :  ''  Man  deprived  of  all  flesh  food,  especially  in 
the  north,  would  suffer  more  than  the  animal  suffers  in 
a  swift  and  unforeseen  death  ;  still  we  ought  to  miti- 
gate it  by  the  help  of  chloroform." 

Then  there  is  the  argument  so  frequently  founded  on 
the  supposed  sanction  of  Nature.  ' '  My  scruples, ' '  wrote 
Lord  Chesterfield,  ''remained  unreconciled  to  the  com- 
mitting of  so  horrid  a  meal,  till  upon  serious  reflection 
I  became  convinced  of  its  legality  from  the  general  order 
of  Nature,  which  has  instituted  the  universal  preying 
upon  the  weaker  as  one  of  her  first  principles. ' ' 

Finally,  we  find  the  redoubtable  Paley  discarding  as 
valueless  the  whole  appeal  to  Nature,  and  relying  on  the 
ordinances  of  Holy  Writ.  ''  A  right  to  the  flesh  of 
animals.  Some  excuse  seems  necessary  for  the  pain  and 
loss  which  we  occasion  to  animals  by  restraining  them  of 
their  liberty,  mutilating  their  bodies,  and  at  last  putting 
an  end  to  their  lives  for  our  pleasure  or  convenience. 
The  reasons  alleged  in  vindication  of  this  practice  are  the 
following  :  that  the  several  species  of  animals  being  cre- 
ated to  prey  upon  one  another  affords  a  kind  of  analogy 
to  prove  that  the  human  species  were  intended  to  feed 


46  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

upon  them.  .  ,  .  Upon  which  reason  I  would  observe 
that  the  analogy  contended  for  is  extremely  lame,  since 
animals  have  no  power  to  support  life  by  any  other  means, 
and  since  we  have,  for  the  whole  human  species  might 
subsist  entirely  upon  fruit,  pulse,  herbs,  and  roots,  as 
many  tribes  of  Hindus  actually  do.  ...  It  seems  to 
me  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  defend  this  right  by  any 
arguments  which  the  light  and  order  of  Nature  afford,  and 
that  we  are  beholden  for  it  to  the  permission  recorded  in 
Scripture. ' ' 

It  is  evident  from  the  above  quotations,  which  might 
be  indefinitely  extended,  that  the  fable  of  the  Wolf  and 
the  Lamb  is  constantly  repeating  itself  in  the  attitude  of 
our  moralists  and  philosophers  towards  the  victims  of  the 
slaughter-house  !  Well  might  Humphry  Primatt  remark 
that  "  we  ransack  and  rack  all  nature  in  her  weakest  and 
tenderest  parts,  to  extort  from  her,  if  possible,  any  con- 
cession whereon  to  rest  the  appearance  of  an  argument. ' ' 

Far  wiser  and  humaner,  on  this  particular  subject,  is 
the  tone  adopted  by  such  writers  as  Michelet,  who,  while 
not  seeing  any  way  of  escape  from  the  practice  of  flesh - 
eating,  at  least  refrain  from  attempting  to  support  it  by 
fallacious  reasonings.  ''The  animals  below  us,"  says 
Michelet,  "  have  also  their  rights  before  God.  Animal 
life,  sombre  mystery  !  Immense  world  of  thoughts  and 
of  dumb  sufferings  !  All  nature  protests  against  the  bar- 
barity of  man,  who  misapprehends,  who  humiliates,  who 
tortures  his  inferior  brethren.  .  .  .  Life — death. 
The  daily  murder  which  feeding  upon  animals  implies — 
those  hard  and  bitter  problems  sternly  placed  themselves 


THE   SLAUGHTER    OF  ANIMALS  FOR   FOOD.      4^ 

before  my  mind.  Miserable  contradiction  !  Let  us  hope 
that  there  may  be  another  globe  in  which  the  base,  the 
cruel  fatalities  of  this  may  be  spared  to  us."  ^ 

Meantime,  however,  the  simple  fact  remains  true,  and 
is  every  year  finding  more  and  more  scientific  corrobo- 
ration, that  there  is  no  such  "cruel  fatality"  as  that 
which  Michelet  imagined.  Comparative  anatomy  has 
shown  that  man  is  not  carnivorous,  but  frugivorous,  in 
his  natural  structure  ;  experience  has  shown  that  flesh- 
food  is  wholly  unnecessary  for  the  support  of  healthy 
life.  The  importance  of  this  more  general  recognition  of 
a  truth  which  has  in  all  ages  been  familiar  to  a  few  en- 
lightened thinkers,  can  hardly  be  over-estimated  in  its 
bearing  on  the  question  of  animals'  rights.  It  clears 
away  a  difficulty  which  has  long  damped  the  enthusiasm, 
or  warped  the  judgment,  of  the  humaner  school  of 
European  moralists,  and  makes  it  possible  to  approach 
the  subject  of  man's  moral  relation  to  the  lower  animals 
in  a  more  candid  and  fearless  spirit  of  enquiry.  It  is 
no  part  of  my  present  purpose  to  advocate  the  cause  of 
vegetarianism ;  but  in  view  of  the  mass  of  evidence, 
readily  obtainable,'^  that  the  transit  and  slaughter  of 
animals  are  necessarily  attended  by  most  atrocious  cruel- 
ties, and  that  a  large  number  of  persons  have  for  years 
been  living  healthily  without  the  use   of  flesh-meat,  it 

^  "  La  Bible  de  rHumanite." 

^  From  any  of  the  following-  societies  :  The  Vegetarian  Society, 
75,  Princess  Street,  Manchester  ;  the  London  Vegetarian  Society, 
Memorial  Hall,  E.  C.  ;  the  National  Food  Reform  Society,  13, 
Rathbone  Place,  W. 


H 


48  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

must  at  least  be  said  that  to  omit  this  branch  of  the  sub- 
ject from  the  most  earnest  and  strenuous  consideration  is 
playing  with  the  question  of  animals'  rights.  Fifty  or  a 
hundred  years  ago,  there  was  perhaps  some  excuse  for 
supposing  that  vegetarianism  w^as  a  mere  fad  j  there  is 
absolutely  no  such  excuse  at  the  present  time. 

There  are  two  points  of  especial  significance  in  this 
connection.  First,  that  as  civilisation  advances,  the 
cruelties  inseparable  from  the  slaughtering  system  have 
been  aggravated  rather  than  diminished,  owing  both  to 
the  increased  necessity  of  transporting  animals  long 
distances  by  sea  and  land,  under  conditions  of  hurry  and 
hardship  which  generally  preclude  any  sort  of  humane 
regard  for  their  comfort,  and  to  the  clumsy  and  barbar- 
ous methods  of  slaughtering  too  often  practised  in  those 
ill-constructed  dens  of  torment  known  as  '■'■  private 
slaughter-houses."  ^ 

Secondly,  that  the  feeling  of  repugnance  caused  among 
all  people  of  sensibility  and  refmement  by  the  sight,  or 
mention,  or  even  thought,  of  the  business  of  the  butcher 
are  also  largely  on  the  increase  ;  so  that  the  details  of 
the  revolting  process  are,  as  far  as  possible,  kept  carefully 
out  of  sight  and  out  of  mind,  being  delegated  to  a  pa- 
riah class  who  do  the  work  which  most  educated  persons 
would  shrink  from  doing  for  themselves.  In  these  two 
facts  we  have  clear  evidence,  first  that  there  is  good  rea- 

^  If  any  reader  thinks  there  is  exaggeration  in  this  statement, 
let  him  study  (i)  "  Cattle  Ships,"  by  Samuel  Plimsoll,  Kegan  Paul, 
Trench,  Trubner  and  Co.,  i8go  ;  (2)  "Behind  the  Scenes  in 
Slaughter-Houses,"  by  H.  F.  Lester,  Wm.  Reeves,  1892. 


THE   SLAUGHTER    OF  ANIMALS  FOR  FOOD.      49 

son  why  the  pubhc  conscience,  or  at  any  rate  the  hu- 
manitarian conscience,  should  be  uneasy  concerning  the 
slaughter  of  "live-stock,"  and  secondly  that  this  unea- 
siness is  already  to  a  large  extent  developed  and  mani- 
fested. 

The  common  argument,  adopted  by  many  apologists 
of  flesh-eating,  as  of  fox-hunting,  that  the  pain  inflicted 
by  the  death  of  the  animals  is  more  than  compensated 
by  the  pleasure  enjoyed  by  them  in  their  life-time,  since 
otherwise  they  would  not  have  been  brought  into  exist- 
ence at  all,  is  ingenious  rather  than  convincing,  being 
indeed  none  other  than  the  old  familiar  fallacy  already 
commented  on — the  arbitrary  trick  of  constituting  our- 
selves the  spokesmen  and  the  interpreters  of  our  victims. 
Mr.  E.  B.  Nicholson,  for  example,  is  of  opinion  that 
''  we  may  pretty  safely  take  it  that  if  he  [the  fox]  were 
able  to  understand  and  answer  the  question,  he  would 
choose  life,  with  all  its  pains  and  risks,  to  non-existence 
without  them."  ^  Unfortunately  for  the  soundness  of 
this  suspiciously  partial  assumption,  there  is  no  recorded 
instance  of  this  strange  alternative  having  ever  been  sub- 
mitted either  to  fox  or  philosopher  ;  so  that  a  precedent 
has  yet  to  be  established  on  which  to  found  a  judgment. 
Meantime,  instead  of  committing  the  gross  absurdity  of 
talking  of  non-existence  as  a  state  which  is  good,  or  bad, 
or  in  any  way  comparable  to  existence,  we  might  do  well 
to  remember  that  animals'  rights,  if  we  admit  them  at 
all,  must  begin  with  the  birth,  and  can  only  end  with 
the  death,  of  the  animals  in  question,  and  that  we  can- 
^  "  The  Rights  of  an  x'Vnimal,"  1879. 
4 


50  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

not  evade  our  just  responsibilities  by  any  such  quibbling 
references  to  an  imaginary  ante-natal  choice  in  an  imag- 
inary ante-natal  condition. 

The  most  mischievous  effect  of  the  practice  of  flesh- 
eating,  in  its  influence  on  the  study  of  animals'  rights 
at  the  present  time,  is  that  it  so  stultifies  and  debases  the 
very  i'aiso?t  d' etre  of  countless  myriads  of  beings — it 
brings  them  into  life  for  no  better  purpose  than  to  deny 
their  right  to  live.  It  is  idle  to  appeal  to  the  interne- 
cine warfare  that  we  see  in  some  aspects  of  wild  nature, 
where  the  weaker  animal  is  often  the  prey  of  the  stronger, 
for  there  (apart  from  the  fact  that  co-operation  largely 
modifies  competition)  the  weaker  races  at  least  hve  their 
own  lives  and  take  their  chance  in  the  game,  whereas 
the  victims  of  the  human  carnivora  are  bred,  and  fed, 
and  from  the  first  predestined  to  untimely  slaughter,  so 
that  their  whole  mode  of  living  is  warped  from  its  nat- 
ural standard,  and  they  are  scarcely  more  than  animated 
beef  or  mutton  or  pork.  This,  I  contend,  is  a  flagrant 
violation  of  the  rights  of  the  lower  animals,  as  those 
rights  are  now  beginning  to  be  apprehended  by  the  hu- 
maner  conscience  of  mankind.  It  has  been  well  said 
that  ''  to  keep  a  man  (slave  or  servant)  for  your  own  ad- 
vantage merely,  to  keep  an  animal  that  you  may  eat  it, 
is  a  lie.  You  cannot  look  that  man  or  animal  in  the 
face."  1 

That  those  who  are  aware  of  the  horrors  involved  in 
slaughtering,  and  also  aware  of  the  possibility  of  a  flesh- 
less  diet,  should  think  it  sufficient  to  oppose  ' '  scriptural 
^  Edward  Carpenter,  "  England's  Ideal." 


THE   SLAUGHTER    OF  ANIMALS  FOR  FOOD.      5 1 

permission  ' '  as  an  answer  to  the  arguments  of  food- 
reformers  is  an  instance  of  the  extraordinary  power  of 
custom  to  bHnd  the  eyes  and  the  hearts  of  otherwise  hu- 
mane men.  The  following  passage  is  quoted  from  a 
"  Plea  for  Mercy  to  Animals,"  ^  as  a  typical  instance  of 
the  sort  of  perverted  sentiment  to  which  I  allude.  "  Not 
in  superstitious  India  only,"  says  the  writer,  whose  ideas 
of  what  constitutes  "superstition"  seem  to  be  rather 
confused,  ''but  in  this  country,  there  are  vegetarians, 
and  other  persons,  who  object  to  the  use  of  animal  food, 
not  on  the  ground  of  health  only,  but  as  involving  a 
power  to  which  man  has  no  right.  To  such  statements 
we  have  only  to  oppose  the  clear  permission  of  the  di- 
vine Author  of  Hfe.  But  the  unquahfied  permission 
can  never  give  sanction  to  the  infliction  of  unnecessary 
pain." 

But  if  the  use  of  flesh-meat  can  itself  be  dispensed  ' 
with,  how  can  it  be  argued  that  the  pain,  which  is  in- 
separable from  slaughtering,  can  be  otherwise  than  un- 
necessary also  ?  I  trust  that  the  cause  of  humanity  and 
"justice"  (not  "mercy")  to  the  lower  animals  is  not 
likely  to  be  retarded  by  any  such  sentimental  and  super- 
stitious objections  as  these  ! 

Reform  of  diet  will  doubtless  be  slow,  and  attended 
in  many  individual  cases  with  its  difficulties  and  draw- 
backs. But  at  least  we  may  lay  down  this  much  as  in- 
cumbent on  all  humanitarian  thinkers — that  everyone 
must  satisfy  himself  of  the  necessity,  the  real  necessity, 
of  the  use  of  flesh-food,  before  he  comes  to  any  intellect- 
'  By  J.  Macaulay,  (Partridge  and  Co.,  i8Si). 


52  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

ual  conclusion  on  the  subject  of  animals'  rights.  It  is 
easy  to  see  that,  as  the  question  is  more  and  more  dis- 
cussed, the  result  will  be  more  and  more  decisive. 
^^  Whatever  my  own  practice  may  be,"  wrote  Thoreau, 
'  '■  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  is  a  part  of  the  destiny  of  the 
human  race,  in  its  gradual  improvement,  to  leave  off 
eating  animals,  as  surely  as  the  savage  tribes  have  left  off 
eating  each  other  when  they  came  in  contact  with  the 
more  civilized." 


CHAPTER  V. 

SPORT,  OR    AMATEUR    BUTCHERY. 

That  particular  form  of  recreation  which  is  euphemis- 
tically known  as  "  sport  "  has  a  close  historical  connec- 
tion with  the  practice  of  flesh-eating,  inasmuch  as  the 
hunter  was  in  old  times  what  the  butcher  is  now, — the 
''purveyor"  on  whom  the  family  was  dependent  for  its 
daily  supply  of  victuals.  Modern  sport,  however,  as 
usually  carried  on  in  civilised  European  countries,  has  de- 
generated into  what  has  been  well  described  as  ' '  ama- 
teur butchery,"  a  system  under  which  the  slaughter  of 
certain  kinds  of  animals  is  practised  less  as  a  necessity 
than  as  a  means  of  amusement  and  diversion.  Just  as 
the  youthful  nobles,  during  the  savage  scenes  and  repri- 
sals of  the  Huguenot  wars,  used  to  seize  the  opportunity 
of  exercising  their  swordsmanship,  and  perfecting  them- 
selves in  the  art  of  dealing  graceful  death-blows,  so  the 
modern  sportsman  converts  the  killing  of  animals  from  a 
prosaic  and  perhaps  distasteful  business  into  an  agreeable 
and  gentlemanly  pastime. 

Now,  on  the  very  face  of  it,  this  amateur  butchery  is, 
in  one  sense,  the  most  wanton  and  indefensible  of  all 
possible  violations  of  the  principle  of  animals'  rights. 
If  animals — or  men,  for  that  matter — have  of  necessity 


54  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

to  be  killed,  let  them  be  killed  accordingly ;  but  to  seek 

one's  own  amusement  out  of  the  death-pangs  of  other 

beings,  this  is  saddening  stupidity  indeed  !     Wisely  did 

Wordsworth  inculcate  as  the  moral  of  his   ''  Hartleap 

Well," 

"   Never  to  blend  our  pleasure  or  our  pride, 
With  sorrow  of  the  meanest  thing  that  feels." 

But  the  sporting  instinct  is  due  to  sheer  callousness  and 
insensibility;  the  sportsman,  by  force  of  habit,  or  by 
force  of  hereditary  influence,  cannot  understand  or  sym- 
pathize with  the  sufferings  he  causes,  and  being,  in  the 
great  majority  of  instances,  a  man  of  slow  perception, 
he  naturally  finds  it  much  easier  to  follow  the  hounds 
than  to  follow  an  argument.  And  here,  in  his  chief 
blame,  lies  also  his  chief  excuse ;  for  it  may  be  said  of 
him,  as  it  cannot  be  said  of  certain  other  tormentors, 
that  he  really  does  not  comprehend  the  import  of  what 
he  is  doing.  Whether  this  ultimately  makes  his  position 
better  or  worse,  is  a  point  for  the  casuist  to  decide. 

That  '^  it  would  have  to  be  killed  anyhow  "  is  a  truly 
deplorable  reason  for  torturing  any  animal  whatsoever ; 
it  is  an  argument  which  would  equally  have  justified  the 
worst  barbarities  of  the  Roman  amphitheatre.  To  exf 
terminate  wolves,  and  other  dangerous  species,  may,  in- 
deed, at  certain  places  and  times,  be  necessary  and  jus- 
tifiable enough.  But  the  sportsman  nowadays  will  not 
even  perform  this  practical  service  of  exterminating  such 
animals — the  fox,  for  example — as  are  noxious  to  the 
general  interests  of  the  community ;  on  the  contrary,  he 


SPORT,    OR   AMATEUR   BUTCHERY.  55 

*' preserves  "  them  (note  the  unintended  humour  of  the 
term  !),  and  then,  by  a  happy  afterthought,  claims  the 
gratitude  of  the  animals  themselves  for  his  humane  and 
benevolent  interposition.^  In  plain  words,  he  first  under- 
takes to  rid  the  country  of  a  pest,  and  then,  finding  the 
process  an  enjoyable  one  to  himself,  he  contrives  that  it 
shall  never  be  brought  to  a  conclusion.  Prometheus 
had  precisely  as  much  reason  to  be  grateful  to  the  vult- 
ure for  eternally  gnawing  at  his  liver,  as  have  the  hunted 
animals  to  thank  the  predaceous  sportsmen  who  ''pre- 
serve "  them.  Let  me  once  more  enter  a  protest  against 
the  canting  Pharisaism  which  is  afraid  to  take  the  just 
responsibility  of  its  own  selfish  pleasure-seeking. 

''What  name  should  we  bestow,"  said  a  humane 
essayist  of  the  eighteenth  century,^  "  on  a  superior  being 
who,  without  provocation  or  advantage,  should  continue 
from  day  to  day,  void  of  all  pity  and  remorse,  to  tor- 
ment mankind  for  diversion,  and  at  the  same  time  en- 
deavour with  the  utmost  care  to  preserve  their  lives  and 
to  propagate  their  species,  in  order  to  increase  the  num- 
ber of  victims  devoted  to  his  malevolence,  and  be  de- 
lighted in  proportion  to  the  miseries  which  he  occa- 
sioned ?  I  say,  what  name  detestable  enough  could  we 
find  for  such  a  being  ?  Yet,  if  we  impartially  consider 
the  case,  and  our  intermediate  situation,  we  must  ac- 

^  I  copy  the  following  typical  argument  from  a  recent  article  in  a 
London  paper.  "If  we  stay  fox-hunting — which  sport  makes 
something  of  some  of  us — foxes  will  die  far  more  brutal  deaths  in 
cruel  vermin-traps,  until  there  are  none  left  to  die." 

'^  Soame  Jenyns,  1782. 


$6  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

knowledge  that,  with  regard  to  the  inferior  animals,  just 
such  a  being  is  the  sportsman. ' ' 

The  excuses  alleged  in  favour  of  English  field-sports 
in  general,  and  of  hunting  in  particular,  are  for  the 
most  part  as  irrelevant  as  they  are  unreasonable.  It  is 
often  said  that  the  manliness  of  our  national  character 
would  be  injuriously  affected  by  the  discontinuance  of 
these  sports — a  strange  argument,  when  one  considers 
the  very  unequal,  and  therefore  unmanly,  conditions  of 
the  strife.  But,  apart  from  this  consideration,  what 
right  can  we  possess  to  cultivate  these  personal  qualities 
at  the  expense  of  unspeakable  suffering  to  the  lower 
races  ?  Such  actions  may  be  pardonable  in  a  savage,  or 
in  a  schoolboy  in  whom  the  savage  nature  still  largely 
predominates,  but  they  are  wholly  unworthy  of  a  civil- 
ised and  rational  man. 

As  for  the  nonsense  sometimes  talked  about  the  bene- 
ficial effect  of  those  field-sports  which  bring  men  into 
contact  with  the  sublimities  of  nature,  I  will  only  repeat 
what  I  have  elsewhere  said  on  this  subject,  that  ''the 
dynamiters  who  cross  the  ocean  to  blow  up  an  English 
town  might  on  this  principle  justify  the  object  of  their 
journey  by  the  assertion  that  the  sea-voyage  brought  them 
in  contact  with  the  exalting  and  ennobling  influence 
of  the  Atlantic."  ^ 

^  As  further  example  of  the  stuff  to  which  the  apologists  of  sport 
are  reduced  in  their  search  for  an  argument,  the  following  may  be 
cited.  "  For  what  object  was  given  the  scent  of  the  hound,  and 
the  exultation  with  which  he  abandons  himself  to  the  chase?  If 
he  were  not  thus  employed,  for  what  valuable  purpose  could  he  be 
used?" 


SPORT,    OR  AMATEUR  BUTCHERY.  5/ 

As  the  case  stands  between  the  sportsman  and  his  vic- 
tims, there  cannot  be  much  doubt  as  to  whence  the  ben- 
efits proceed,  and  from  which  party  the  gratitude  is 
due.  "  Woe  to  the  ungrateful !  "  says  Michelet.  "  By 
this  phrase  I  mean  the  sporting  crowd,  who,  unmindful 
of  the  numerous  benefits  we  owe  to  the  animals,  exter- 
minate innocent  life.  A  terrible  sentence  weighs  on  the 
tribes  of  sportsmen — they  can  create  nothing.  They 
originate  no  art,  no  industry.  .  .  •  It  is  a  shock- 
ing and  hideous  thing  to  see  a  child  partial  to  sport ; 
to  see  woman  enjoying  and  admiring  murder,  and  en- 
couraging her  child.  That  delicate  and  sensitive  wom- 
an would  not  give  him  a  knife,  but  she  gives  him  a 
gun." 

The  sports  of  hunting  and  coursing  are  a  brutality 
which  could  not  be  tolerated  for  a  day  in  a  state  which 
possessed  anything  more  than  the  mere  name  of  justice, 
freedom,  and  enlightenment.  "  Nor  can  they  compre- 
hend," says  Sir  Thomas  More  of  his  model  citizens  in 
''  Utopia,"  ''  the  pleasure  of  seeing  dogs  run  after  a  hare 
more  than  of  seeing  one  dog  run  after  another  ;  for  if 
the  seeing  them  run  is  that  which  gives  the  pleasure,  you 
have  the  same  entertainment  to  the  eye  on  both  these 
occasions,  since  that  is  the  same  in  both  cases  ;  but  if 
the  pleasure  lies  in  seeing  the  hare  killed  and  torn  by 
the  dogs,  this  ought  rather  to  stir  pity,  that  a  weak, 
harmless,  and  fearful  hare  should  be  devoured  by  strong, 
fierce,  and  cruel  dogs." 

To  be  accurate,  the  zest  of  sport  lies  neither  in  the 
running  nor  the  kilhng,  as  such,  but  in  the  excitement 


58  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

caused  by  the  fact  that  a  Hfe  (some  one  else's  Hfe)  is  at 
stake,  that  the  pursuer  is  matched  in  a  fierce  game  of 
hazard  against  the  pursued.  The  opinion  has  been  ex- 
pressed, by  one  well  qualified  to  speak  with  authority  on 
the  subject,  that  '' well-laid  drags,  tracked  by  experts, 
would  test  the  mettle  both  of  hounds  and  riders  to 
hounds,  but  then  a  terrified,  palpitating,  fleeing  Hfe 
would  not  be  struggling  ahead,  and  so  the  idea  is  not 
pleasing  to  those  who  find  pleasure  in  blood."  ^ 

The  case  is  even  worse  when  the  quarry  is  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  domesticated,  an  animal  wild  by 
nature,  but  by  force  of  circumstances  and  surroundings 
tame.  Such  are  the  Ascot  stags,  the  victims  of  the 
Royal  Sport,  which  is  one  of  the  last  and  least  justifi- 
able relics  of  feudal  barbarism.^  I  would  here  remark 
that  there  is  urgent  need  that  the  laws  which  relate  to 
the  humane  treatment  of  animals  should  be  amended, 
or  more  wisely  interpreted,  on  this  particular  point,  so 
as  to  afford  immediate  protection  to  these  domesticated 
stags,  whose  torture,  under  the  name  and  sanction  of  the 
Crown  and  the  State,  has  been  long  condemned  by  the 
public  conscience.  Bear-baiting  and  cock-fighting  have 
now  been  abolished  by  legal  enactment,  and  it  is  high 
time  that  the  equally  demoralising  sport  of  hunting  of 
tame  stags  should  be  relegated  to  the  same  category.^ 

^  "  The  Horrors  of  Sport,"  by  Lady  Florence  Dixie,  1892. 

2  See  "  Royal  Sport,  some  Facts  concerning  the  Queen's  Buck- 
hounds,"  by  the  Rev.  J.  Stratton. 

^  As  long  ago  as  1877  a  prosecution  for  the  torture  of  a  hind  by 
the  Royal  Buckhounds  was  instituted  by  the  Society  for  the  Pre- 


SPORT,    OR  AMATEUR  BUTCHERY.  59 

The  same  must  be  said  of  some  sports  which  are 
practised  by  the  EngHsh  working-man — rabbit-coursing, 
in  particular,  that  half-hoUday  diversion  which  is  so 
popular  in  many  villages  of  the  north. ^  An  attempt  is 
often  made  by  the  apologists  of  amateur  butchery  to 
play  off  one  class  against  another  in  the  discussion  of 
this  question.  They  protest,  on  the  one  hand,  against 
any  interference  with  aristocratic  sport,  on  the  plea  that 
working  men  are  no  less  addicted  to  such  pastimes ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  cry  is  raised  against  the  un- 
fairness of  restricting  the  amusements  of  the  poor,  while 
noble  lords  and  ladies  are  permitted  to  hunt  the  carted 
stag  with  impunity. 

The  obvious  answer  to  these  quibbling  excuses  is  that 
all  such  barbarities,  whether  practised  by  rich  or  poor, 
are  alike  condemned  by  any  conceivable  principle  of 
justice  and  humaneness ;  and,  further,  that  it  is  a  doubt- 
ful compliment  to  working  men  to  suggest  that  they 
have  nothing  better  to  do  in  their  spare  hours  than  to 
torture  defenceless  rabbits.  It  was  long  ago  remarked 
by  Martin,  the  author  of  the  famous  Act  of  1822,  that 

vention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals.  The  hind  was  worried  for  more 
than  an  hour  by  six  hounds,  and  fearfully  mutilated.  But  though 
a  dozen  eye-witnesses  were  forthcoming,  and  the  skin  of  the 
animal  was  in  possession  of  the  Society  (it  may  be  seen  to  this  day 
at  the  office  in  Jermyn  Street),  the  case  was  dismissed  by  the  mag- 
istrates on  the  absurd  ground  that  a  stag  is  fe7'(£  naturce,  and  all 
evidence  and  argument  were  thus  purposely  shut  out.  See  the 
"  Animal  World  "  for  June  ist,  1877. 

'  See  "  Rabbit-Coursing,  an  Appeal  to  Working  Men,"  by  Dr. 
R.  H.  Jude,  1892. 


60  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS. 

such  an  argument  indicates  at  bottom  a  contempt  rather 
than  regard  for  the  working  classes ;  it  is  as  much  as  to 
say,  "  Poor  creatures,  let  them  alone — they  have  few- 
amusements — let  them  enjoy  them." 

Nothing  can  be  more  shocking  than  the  treatment 
commonly  accorded  to  rabbits,  rats,  and  other  small 
animals,  on  the  plea  that  they  are  ''  vermin,"  and  there- 
fore, it  is  tacitly  assumed,  outside  the  pale  of  humanity 
and  justice  ;  we  have  here  another  instance  of  the  way 
in  which  the  application  of  a  contemptuous  name  may 
aggravate  and  increase  the  actual  tendency  to  barbarous 
ill-usage.  How  many  a  demoralising  spectacle,  espe- 
cially where  the  young  are  concerned,  is  witnessed  when 
^'  fun  "  is  made  out  of  the  death  and  torture  of  "ver- 
min !  "  How  horrible  is  the  practice,  apparently  uni- 
versal throughout  all  country  districts,  of  setting  steel 
traps  along  the  ditches  and  hedgerows,  in  which  the 
victims  are  frequently  left  to  linger,  in  an  agony  of  pain 
and  apprehension,  for  hours  or  even  days  !  If  the 
lower  races  have  any  rights  soever,  here  surely  is  a 
flagrant  and  inexcusable  outrage  on  such  rights.  Yet 
there  are  no  means  of  redressing  these  barbarities,  be- 
cause the  laws,  such  as  they  are,  which  prohibit  cruelty 
to  animals,  are  not  designed  to  take  any  cognizance  of 
"  vermin." 

All  that  has  been  said  of  hunting  and  coursing  is 
apphcable  also — in  a  less  degree,  perhaps,  but  on  exactly 
the  same  principle — to  the  sports  of  shooting  and  fishing. 
It  does  not  in  the  least  matter,  so  far  as  the  question  of 
animals'  rights  is  concerned,  whether  you  run  your  victim 


SPORT,    OR  AMATEUR   BUTCHERY.  6 1 

to  death  with  a  pack  of  yelping  hounds,  or  shoot  him 
with  a  gun,  or  drag  him  from  his  native  waters  by  a  hook  ; 
the  point  at  issue  is  simply  whether  man  is  justified  in 
inflicting  any  form  of  death  or  suffering  on  the  lower 
races  for  his  mere  amusement  and  caprice.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  what  answer  must  be  given  to  this  ques- 
tion. 

In  concluding  this  chapter,  let  me  quote  a  striking  tes- 
timony to  the  wickedness  and  injustice  of  sport,  as  ex- 
hibited in  one  of  its  most  refined  and  fashionable  forms 
the  ''  cult  of  the  pheasant." 

''  For  what  is  it,"  says  Lady  Florence  Dixie, ^  ''  but 
the  deliberate  massacre  in  cold  blood  every  year  of  thou- 
sands and  tens  of  thousands  of  tame,  hand-reared  birds, 
who  are  literally  driven  into  the  jaws  of  death  and  mown 
down  in  a  peculiarly  brutal  manner  ?  .  .  .  A  per- 
fect roar  of  guns  fills  the  air,  louder  tap  and  yell  the  beat- 
ers, above  the  din  can  be  heard  the  heart-rendering  cries 
of  wounded  hares  and  rabbits,  some  of  which  can  be  seen 
dragging  themselves  away,  with  both  hind  legs  broken, 
or  turning  round  and  round  in  their  agony  before  they 
die.  And  the  pheasants  !  They  are  on  every  side,  some 
rising,  some  dropping,  some  lying  dead,  but  the  greater 
majority  fluttering  on  the  ground  wounded,  some  with 
both  legs  broken  and  a  wing,  some  with  both  wings 
broken  and  a  leg,  others  merely  winged,  running  to 
hide,  others  mortally  wounded  gasping  out  their  last 
breath  of  life  amidst  the  fiendish  sounds  which  sur- 
round them.     And    this    is    called    sport! 

^  Letter  to  "  Pall  Mall  Gazette,"  March  24th,  1892. 


62  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS, 

Sport  in  every  form  and  kind  is  horrible,  from  the  rich 
man's  hare-coursing  to  the  poor  man's  rabbit-cours- 
ing. All  show  the  '  tiger  '  that  lives  in  our  natures, 
and  which  nothing  but  a  higher  civilisation  will  eradi- 
cate." 


CHAPTER  VI. 


MURDEROUS    MILLINERY. 


We  have  seen  what  a  vast  amount  of  quite  preventable 
suffering  is  caused  through  the  agency  of  the  slaughter- 
man, who  kills  for  a  business,  and  of  the  sportsman  who 
kills  for  a  pastime,  the  victims  in  either  case  being  re- 
garded as  mere  irrational  automata,  with  no  higher  des- 
tiny than  to  satisfy  the  most  artificial  wants  or  the  most 
cruel  caprices  of  mankind.  A  few  words  must  now  be 
said  about  the  fur  and  feather  traffic — the  slaughter  of 
mammals  and  birds  for  human  clothing  or  human  orna- 
mentation— a  subject  connected  on  the  one  hand  with 
that  of  flesh-eating,  and  on  the  other,  though  to  a  less  de- 
gree, with  that  of  sport.  What  I  shall  say  will  of  course 
have  no  reference  to  wool,  or  any  other  substance  which 
is  obtainable  without  injury  to  the  animal  from  which  it 
is  taken. 

It  is  evident  that  in  this  case,  as  in  the  butcher- 
ing trade,  the  responsibility  for  whatever  wrongs 
are  done  must  rest  ultimately  on  the  class  which  de- 
mands an  unnecessary  commodity,  rather  than  on  that 
which  is  compelled  by  economic  pressure  to  supply  it ; 
it  is  not  the  man  who  kills  the  bird,  but  the  lady  who 
wears  the  feathers  in  her  hat,  who  is  the  true  offender. 


64  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS, 

But  here  it  will  be  asked,  is  the  use  of  fur  and  leathers 
unnecessary  ?  Now  of  course  if  we  consider  solely  the 
present  needs  and  tastes  of  society,  in  regard  to  these 
matters,  it  must  be  admitted  that  a  sudden,  unexpected 
withdrawal  of  the  numberless  animal  products  on  which 
our  ''civilisation"  depends  would  be  a  very  serious 
embarrassment ;  the  world,  as  alarmists  point  out  to  us, 
might  have  to  go  to  bed  without  candles,  and  wake  up 
to  find  itself  without  boots.  It  must  be  remembered, 
however,  that  such  changes  do  not  come  about  with 
suddenness,  but,  on  the  contrary,  with  the  extremest 
slowness  imaginable ;  and  a  little  thought  will  suggest, 
what  experience  has  already  in  many  cases  confirmed, 
that  there  is  really  no  indispensable  animal  substance 
for  which  a  substitute  cannot  be  provided,  when  once 
there  is  sufficient  demand,  from  the  vegetable  or  mineral 
kingdom. 

Take  the  case  of  leather,  for  instance,  a  material 
which  is  in  almost  universal  use,  and  may,  under  pres- 
ent circumstances,  be  fairly  described  as  a  necessary. 
What  should  we  do  without  leather?  was,  in  fact,  a 
question  very  frequently  asked  of  vegetarians  during  the 
early  and  callow  years  of  the  food-reform  movement, 
until  it  was  found  that  vegetable  leather  could  be  suc- 
cessfully employed  in  bootmaking,  and  that  the  incon- 
sistency of  which  vegetarians  at  present  stand  convicted 
is  only  a  temporary  and  incidental  one.  Now  of  course, 
so  long  as  oxen  are  slaughtered  for  food,  their  skins  will 
be  utilized  in  this  way  ;  but  it  is  not  difficult  to  foresee 
that  the  gradual  discontinuance  of  the  habit  of  flesh-eat- 


MURDEROUS  MILLINERY.  6^ 

ing  will  lead  to  a  similar  gradual  discontinuance  of  the 
use  of  hides,  and  that  human  ingenuity  will  not  be  at  a 
loss  in  the  provision  of  a  substitute.  So  that  it  does  not 
follow  that  a  commodity  which,  in  the  immediate  sense, 
is  necessary  now,  would  be  absolutely  or  permanently 
necessary,  under  different  conditions,  in  the  future. 

My  sole  reason  for  dwelling  on  this  typical  point  is 
that  I  wish  to  guard  myself,  by  anticipation,  against  a 
very  plausible  argument,  by  which  discredit  is  often  cast 
on  the  whole  theory  of-  animals'  rights.  What  can  be 
the  object,  it  is  said,  of  entering  on  the  sentimental  path 
of  an  impossible  humanitarianism,  which  only  leads  into 
insurmountable  difficulties  and  dilemmas,  inasmuch  as 
the  use  of  these  various  animal  substances  is  so  interwo- 
ven with  the  whole  system  of  society  that  it  can  never  be 
discontinued  until  society  itself  comes  to  an  end?  I  as- 
sert that  the  case  is  by  no  means  so  desperate — that  it  is 
easy  to  make  a  right  beginning  now,  and  to  foresee  the 
lines  along  which  future  progress  will  be  effected.  Much 
that  is  impossible  in  our  own  time  may  be  realized,  by 
those  who  come  after  us,  as  the  natural  and  inevitable 
outcome  of  reforms  which  it  now  lies  with  us  to  inaugu- 
rate. 

This  said,  it  may  be  freely  admitted  that,  at  the  out- 
set, humanitarians  will  do  well  to  draw  a  practical  dis- 
tinction between  such  animal  products  as  are  converted 
to  some  genuine  personal  use,  and  those  which  are  sup- 
plied for  no  better  object  than  to  gratify  the  idle  whims 
of  luxury  or  fashion.  The  when  and  the  where  are  con- 
siderations of  the  greatest  import  in  these  questions. 
5 


66  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

There  is  a  certain  iitness  in  the  hunter — himself  the 
product  of  a  rough,  wild  era  in  human  development — 
assuming  the  skins  of  the  wild  creatures  he  has  conquered  ; 
but  it  does  not  follow  because  an  Eskimo,  for  example, 
may  appropriately  wear  fur,  or  a  Red  Indian  feathers, 
that  this  apparel  will  be  equally  becoming  to  the  inhabi- 
tants of  London  or  New  York  \  on  the  contrary,  an  act 
which  is  perfectly  natural  in  the  one  case,  is  often  a  sign 
of  crass  vulgarity  in  the  other.  Hercules,  clothed  tri- 
umphant in  the  spoils  of  the  Nemean  lion,  is  a  subject 
for  painter  and  poet ;  but  what  if  he  had  purchased  the 
skin,  ready  dressed,  from  a  contemporary  manufacturer  ? 
What  we  must  unhesitatingly  condemn  is  the  blind 
and  reckless  barbarism  which  has  ransacked,  and  is 
ransacking,  whole  provinces  and  continents,  without  a 
glimmer  of  suspicion  that  the  innumerable  birds  and 
quadrupeds  which  it  is  rapidly  exterminating  have  any 
other  part  or  purpose  in  nature  than  to  be  sacrificed  to 
human  vanity,  that  idle  gentlemen  and  ladies  may  be- 
deck themselves,  like  certain  characters  in  the  fable,  in 
borrowed  skins  and  feathers.  What  care  they  for  all  the 
beauty  and  tenderness  and  intelligence  of  the  varied 
forms  of  animal  life?  What  is  it  to  them  whether 
these  be  helped  forward  by  man  in  the  universal  progress 
and  evolution  of  all  living  things,  or  whether  whole 
species  be  transformed  and  degraded  by  the  way — boiled 
down,  like  the  beaver,  into  a  hat,  or,  like  the  seal,  into 
a  lady's  jacket  ?   ^ 

^  It  is  stated  of  the  fur-seal  of  Alaska  {callorhinus  tirsimis)  that 
"there  is  no  known  animal,  on  land  or  water,  which  can  take 


MURDEROUS  MILL/. VERY.  6/ 

Whatever  it  may  be  in  other  respects,  the  fur  trade, 
in  so  far  as  it  is  a  supply  of  ornamental  clothing  for 
those  who  are  under  no  necessity  of  wearing  fur  at  all, 
is  a  barbarous  and  stupid  business.  It  makes  patch- 
work, one  may  say,  not  only  of  the  hides  of  its  victims, 
but  of  the  conscience  and  intellect  of  its  supporters.  A 
fur  garment  or  trimming,  we  are  told,  appearing  to  the 
eye  as  if  it  were  one  uniform  piece,  is  generally  made  up 
of  many  curiously  shaped  fragments.  It  is  significant 
that  a  society  which  is  enamoured  of  so  many  shams  and 
fictions,  and  which  detests  nothing  so  strongly  as  the 
need  of  looking  facts  in  the  face,  should  pre-eminently 
esteem  those  articles  of  apparel  which  are  constructed  on 
the  most  deceptive  and  illusory  principle.  The  story 
of  the  Ass  in  the  Lion's  skin  is  capable,  it  seems,  of  a 
new  and  wider  application. 

But  if  the  fur  trade  gives  cause  for  serious  reflection, 
what  are  we  to  say  of  the  still  more  abominable  trade  in 
feathers?  Murderous,  indeed,  is  the  millinery  which 
finds  its  most  fashionable  ornament  in  the  dead  bodies 
of  birds — birds,  the  loveliest  and  most  blithesome  be- 
ings in  Nature  !  There  is  a  pregnant  remark  made  by  a 
writer  in  the  ''Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  that  ''to 
enumerate  all  the  feathers  used  for  ornamental  purposes 
would  be  practically  to  give  a  complete  list  of  all  known 
and  obtainable  birds."  The  figures  and  details  pub- 
lished by  those  humane  writers  who  have  raised  an  una- 

higher  physical  rank,  or  which  exhibits  a  higher  order  of  instinct, 
closely  approaching  human  intelligence." — Chambers'  Journal^ 
Nov.  27th,  1886. 


6S  A  NIDI  A  LS'    RIGHTS. 

vailing  protest  against  this  latest  and  worst  crime  of 
Fashion  are  simply  appalling  in  their  stern  and  naked 
record  of  unremitting  cruelty. 

''  One  dealer  in  London  is  said  to  have  received  as  a 
single  consignment  32,000  dead  humming-birds,  80,000 
aquatic  birds,  and  800,000  pairs  of  wings.  A  Parisian 
dealer  had  a  contract  for  40,000  birds,  and  an  army  of 
murderers  were  turned  out  to  supply  the  order.  No  less 
than  40,000  terns  have  been  sent  from  Long  Island  in 
one  season  for  millinery  purposes.  At  one  auction  alone 
in  London  there  were  sold  404,389  West  Indian  and 
Brazilian  bird-skins,  and  356,389  East  Indian,  besides 
thousands  of  pheasants  and  birds-of-paradise. "  ^  The 
meaning  of  such  statistics  is  simply  that  the  women  of 
Europe  and  America  have  given  an  order  for  the  ruth- 
less extermination  of  birds. ^ 

It  is  not  seriously  contended  in  any  quarter  that  this 
wholesale  destruction,  effected  often  in  the  most  revolt- 
ing and  heartless  manner,-^  is  capable  of  excuse  or  justi- 
fication ;  yet  the  efforts  of  those  who  address  themselves 
to  the  better  feelings  of  the  offenders  appear  to  meet 
with  little  or  no  success.  The  cause  of  this  failure  must 
undoubtedly  be  sought  in  the  general  lack  of  any  clear 

^  Quoted  from  "As  in  a  Mirror,  an  Appeal  to  the  Ladies  of 
England." 

■^  "  You  kill  a  paddy-bird,"  says  an  Indian  proverb,  "  and  what 
do  you  get?  A  handful  of  feathers."  Unfortunately  commerce 
has  now  taught  the  natives  of  India  that  a  handful  of  feathers  is 
not  without  its  value. 

^  See  the  publications  issued  by  the  Society  for  the  Protection  of 
Birds,  29,  Warwick  Road,  Maida  Vale,  W. 


MURDEROUS  MILLINERY.  69 

conviction  that  animals  have  rights ;  and  the  evil  will 
never  be  thoroughly  remedied  until  not  only  this  partic- 
ular abuse,  but  all  such  abuses,  and  the  prime  source 
from  which  such  abuses  originate,  have  been  subjected 
to  an  impartial  criticism.^ 

In  saying  this  I  do  not  of  course  mean  to  imply  that 
special  efforts  should  not  be  directed  against  special 
cruelties.  I  have  already  remarked  that  the  main  re- 
sponsibility for  the  daily  murders  which  fashionable 
millinery  is  instigating,  must  lie  at  the  doors  of  those 

^  It  is  well  that  ladies  should  pledge  themselves  to  a  rule  of  not 
wearing  feathers  ;  but  that  is  an  ominous  exception  which  permits 
them  to  wear  the  feathers  of  birds  killed  for  food.  It  is  to  such 
inconsistencies  that  an  anonymous  satirist  makes  reference  in  the 
following  lines  : 

"  When  Edwin  sat  him  down  to  dine  one  night, 
With  piteous  grief  his  heart  was  newly  stricken  ; 

In  vain  did  Angelina  him  invite, 
Grace  said,  to  carve  the  chicken. 

"  '  A  thousand  songsters  slaughtered  in  one  day  ; 

Oh,  Angelina,  meditate  upon  it ; 
And  henceforth  never,  never  wear,  I  pray, 
A  redbreast  in  thy  bonnet.' 

"  Fair  Angelina  did  not  scold  nor  scowl  ; 

No  word  she  spake,  she  better  knew  her  lover ; 
But  from  the  ample  dish  of  roasted  fowl 

She  gently  raised  the  cover. 

"  And  lo  !  the  savour  of  that  tender  bird 
The  tender  Edwin's  appetite  did  quicken. 

He  started,  by  a  new  emotion  stirred,  I 

Said  grace,  and  carved  the  chicken."  J 


"JO  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

who  demand,  rather  than  those  who  supply,  these 
hideous  and  funereal  ornaments.  Unfortunately  the 
process,  like  that  of  slaughtering  cattle,  is  throughout 
delegated  to  other  hands  than  those  of  the  ultimate  pur- 
chaser, so  that  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  bring  home 
a  due  sense  of  blood -guiltiness  to  the  right  person. 

The  confirmed  sportsman,  or  amateur  butcher,  at 
least  sees  with  his  own  eyes  the  circumstances  attendant 
on  his  '■'■  sport ;  "  and  the  fact  that  he  feels  no  compunc- 
tion in  pursuing  it,  is  due,  in  most  cases,  to  an  obtuse- 
ness  or  confusion  of  the  moral  faculties.  But  many  of 
those  who  wear  seal-skin  mantles,  or  feather-bedaubed 
bonnets  are  naturally  humane  enough ;  they  are  misled 
by  pure  ignorance  or  thoughtlessness,  and  would  at  once 
abandon  such  practices  if  they  could  be  made  aware  of 
the  methods  employed  in  the  wholesale  massacre  of  seals^ 
or  humming-birds.  Still,  it  remains  true  that  all  these 
questions  ultimately  hang  together,  and  that  no  complete 
solution  will  be  found  for  any  one  of  them  until  the 
whole  problem  of  our  moral  relation  towards  the  lower 
animals  is  studied  with  far  greater  comprehensiveness. 

For  this  reason  it  is  perhaps  unscientific  to  assert  that 
any  particular  form  of  cruelty  to  animals  is  worse,  than 
another  form ;  the  truth  is,  that  each  of  these  hydra- 
heads,  the  offspring  of  one  parent  stem,  has  its  own 
proper  characteristic,  and  is  different,  not  worse  or  bet- 
ter than  the  rest.  To  flesh-eating  belongs  the  proud 
distinction  of  causing  a  greater  bulk  of  animal  suffering 
than  any  other  habit  whatsoever  ;  to  sport,  the  meed  of 
unique  and  unparalleled  brutality  ;   while  the  patrons  of 


MURDEROUS  MILLINERY.  "J I 

murderous  millinery  afford  the  most  marvellous  instance 
of  the  capacity  the  human  mind  possesses  for  ignoring 
its  personal  responsibilities.     To  re-apply  Keats's  words  ; 

"  For  them  the  Ceylon  diver  held  his  breath, 
And  went  all  naked  to  the  hungry  shark  ; 

For  them  his  ears  gush'd  blood  ;  for  them  in  death 
The  seal  on  the  cold  ice  with  piteous  bark 

Lay  full  of  darts  ;  for  them  alone  did  seethe 
A  thousand  men  in  troubles  wide  and  dark  ; 

Half  ignorant,  they  turn'd  an  easy  wheel, 

That  set  sharp  racks  at  work,  to  pinch  and  peel." 


CHAPTER  VII. 


EXPERIMENTAL     TORTURE. 


Great  is  the  change  when  we  turn  from  the  easy 
thoughtless  indifferentism  of  the  sportsman  or  the  mil- 
liner to  the  more  determined  and  deliberately  chosen 
attitude  of  the  scientist — so  great,  indeed,  that  by  many 
people,  even  among  professed  champions  of  animals' 
rights,  it  is  held  impossible  to  trace  such  dissimilar  lines 
of  action  to  one  and  the  same  source.  Yet  it  can  be 
shown,  I  think,  that  in  this  instance,  as  in  those  already 
examined,  the  prime  cause  of  man's  injustice  to  the 
lower  animals  is  the  belief  that  they  are  mere  automata, 
devoid  alike  of  spirit,  character,  and  individuality  ; 
only,  while  the  ignorant  sportsman  expresses  this  con- 
tempt through  the  medium  of  the  battue,  and  the  milli- 
ner through  that  of  the  bonnet,  the  more  seriously- 
minded  physiologist  works  his  work  in  the  "  experimen- 
tal torture  ' '  of  the  laboratory.  The  difference  lies  in 
the  temperament  of  the  men,  and  in  the  tone  of  their 
profession ;  but  in  their  denial  of  the  most  elementary 
rights  of  the  lower  races,  they  are  all  inspired  and  insti- 
gated by  one  common  prejudice. 

The  analytical  method  employed  by  modern  science 
tends  ultimately,   in  the  hands  of  its  most  enlightened 


EXPERIMENTAL   TORTURE.  73 

exponents,  to  the  recognition  of  a  close  relationship 
between  mankind  and  the  animals ;  but  incidentally  it 
has  exercised  a  most  sinister  effect  on  the  study  of  the 
jits  a7iimaliuin  among  the  mass  of  average  men.  For 
consider  the  dealings  of  the  so-called  naturalist  with  the 
animals  whose  nature  he  makes  it  his  business  to  observe  ! 
In  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred,  he  is  wholly  un- 
appreciative  of  the  essential  distinctive  quality,  the 
individuality,  of  the  subject  of  his  investigations,  and 
becomes  nothing  more  than  a  contented  accumulator  of 
facts,  an  industrious  dissector  of  carcases.  "  I  think 
the  most  important  requisite  in  describing  an  animal," 
says  Thoreau,  ''  is  to  be  sure  that  you  give  its  character 
and  spirit,  for  in  that  you  have,  without  error,  the  sum 
and  effect  of  all  its  parts  known  and  unknown.  Surely 
the  most  important  part  of  an  animal  is  its  anima,  its 
vital  spirit,  on  which  is  based  its  character  and  all  the 
particulars  by  which  it  most  concerns  us.  Yet  most 
scientific  books  which  treat  of  animals  leave  this  out 
altogether,  and  what  they  describe  are,  as  it  were, 
phenomena  of  dead  matter." 

The  whole  system  of  our  '^  natural  history  "  as  prac- 
tised at  the  present  time,  is  based  on  this  deplorably 
partial  and  misleading  method.  Does  a  rare  bird  alight 
on  our  shores  ?  It  is  at  once  slaughtered  by  some  enter- 
prising collector,  and  proudly  handed  over  to  the  nearest 
taxidermist,  that  it  may  be  '^  preserved,"  among  a  num- 
ber of  other  stuffed  corpses,  in  the  local  ''  Museum." 
It  is  a  dismal  business  at  best,  this  science  of  the  fowl- 
ing-piece and  the  dissecting-knife,  but  it  is  in  keeping 


74  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

with  the  materiahstic  tendency  of  a  certain  school  of 
thought,  and  only  a  few  of  its  professors  rise  out  of  it, 
and  above  it,  to  a  maturer  and  more  far-sighted  under- 
standing. ''The  child,"  says  Michelet,  ''disports 
himself,  shatters,  and  destroys ;  he  finds  his  happiness 
in  tmdoing.  And  science,  in  its  childhood,  does  the 
same.  It  cannot  study  unless  it  kills.  The  sole  use 
which  it  makes  of  a  living  mind  is,  in  the  first  place,  to 
dissect  it.  None  carry  into  scientific  pursuits  that 
tender  reverence  for  life  which  Nature  rewards  by  un- 
veiling to  us  her  mysteries." 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  scarcely  to  be  won- 
dered at  that  modern  scientists,  their  minds  athirst  for 
further  and  further  opportunities  of  satisfying  this  ana- 
lytical curiosity,  should  desire  to  have  recourse  to  the 
experimental  torture  which  is  euphemistically  described 
as  "vivisection."  They  are  caught  and  impelled  by 
the  overmastering  passion  of  knowledge ;  and,  as  a 
handy  subject  for  the  gratification  of  this  passion,  they 
see  before  them  the  helpless  race  of  animals,  in  part 
wild,  in  part  domesticated,  but  alike  regarded  by  the 
generality  of  mankind  as  incapable  of  possessing  any 
"rights."  They  are  practically  accustomed  (despite 
their  ostensible  disavowal  of  the  Cartesian  theory)  to 
treat  these  animals  as  automata — things  made  to  be 
killed  and  dissected  and  catalogued  for  the  advance- 
ment of  knowledge  ;  they  are,  moreover,  in  their  pro- 
fessional capacity,  the  lineal  descendants  of  a  class  of 
men  who,  however  kindly  and  considerate  in  other 
respects,  have  never  scrupled  to  subordinate  the  strong- 


EXP E RIME jVTAL    TORTURE.  75 

est  promptings  of  humaneness  to  the  least  of  the  sup- 
posed interests  of  science.^  Given  these  conditions,  it 
seems  as  inevitable  that  the  physiologist  should  vivisect 
as  that  the  country  gentleman  should  shoot.  Experi- 
mental torture  is  as  appropriately  the  study  of  the 
half-enlightened  man  as  sport  is  the  amusement  of  the 
half-witted. 

But  the  fact  that  vivisection  is  not,  as  some  of  its 
opponents  would  appear  to  regard  it,  a  portentous,  un- 
accountable phenomenon,  but  rather  the  logical  outcome 
of  a  certain  ill-balanced  habit  of  mind,  does  not  in  any 
way  detract  from  its  intellectual  and  moral  loathsome- 
ness. It  is  idle  to  spend  a  single  moment  in  advocating 
the  rights  of  the  lower  animals,  if  such  rights  do  not 
include  a  total  and  unqualified  exemption  from  the 
awful  tortures  of  vivisection — from  the  doom  of  being 
slowly  and  mercilessly  dismembered,  or  flayed,  or  baked 
alive,  or  infected  with  some  deadly  virus,  or  subjected 

*  Vivisection  is  an  ancient  usage,  having  been  practised  for 
2,000  years  or  more,  in  Egypt,  Italy,  and  elsewhere.  Human 
vivisection  is  mentioned  by  Galen  as  having  been  fashionable  for 
centuries  before  his  day,  and  Celsus  informs  us  that  "  they  pro- 
cured criminals  out  of  prison,  and,  dissecting  them  alive,  contem- 
plated, while  they  were  yet  breathing,  what  nature  had  before 
concealed."  The  sorcerers,  too,  of  the  Middle  Ages  tortured  both 
human  beings  and  animals,  with  a  view  to  the  discovery  of  their 
medicinal  elixirs.  The  recognition  of  the  rights  of  men  has  now 
made  human  vivisection  criminal,  and  the  scientific  inquisition  of 
the  present  time  counts  animals  alone  as  its  victims.  And  here 
the  Act  of  1876  has  fortunately,  though  not  sufficiently,  restricted 
the  powers  of  the  vivisector  in  Great  Britain. 


76  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

to  any  of  the  numerous  modes  of  torture  inflicted  by  the 
Scientific  Inquisition.  Let  us  heartily  endorse  the 
words  of  Miss  Cobbe  on  this  crucial  subject,  that  ''  the 
minimum  of  all  possible  rights  plainly  is — to  be  spared 
the  worst  of  all  possible  wrongs  ;  and  if  a  horse  or  dog 
have  no  claim  to  be  spared  from  being  maddened  and 
mangled  after  the  fashion  of  Pasteur  and  Chauveau,  then 
it  is  impossible  it  can  have  any  right  at  all,  or  that 
any  offence  against  it,  by  gentle  or  simple,  can  deserve 
punishment. ' ' 

It  is  necessary  to  speak  strongly  and  unmistakably  on 
this  point,  because,  as  I  have  already  said,  there  is  a 
disposition  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  ''friends  of  ani- 
mals ' '  to  palter  and  compromise  with  vivisection,  as  if 
the  alleged  ''utility"  of  its  practices,  or  the  "consci- 
entious ' '  motives  of  its  professors,  put  it  on  an  alto- 
gether different  footing  from  other  kinds  of  inhumanity. 
"  Much  against  my  own  feelings,"  wrote  one  of  these 
backsliders,^  "  I  do  see  a  warrant  for  vivisection  in  the 
case  of  harmful  animals,  and  animals  which  are  man's 
rivals  for  food.  If  an  animal  is  doomed  to  be  killed  on 
other  grounds,  the  vivisector,  when  its  time  comes,  may 
step  in,  buy  it,  kill  it  in  his  own  way,  and  take  without 
self-reproach  the  gain  to  knowledge  which  he  can  get 
from  its  death.  And  my  '  sweet  is  life  '  theory  would 
further  allow  of  animals  being  specially  bred  for  vivi- 
section—  where  and  where  only  they  would  other- 
wise not  have  been  bred  at  all. ' '  This  astounding  argu- 
ment, which  assumes  the  necessity  of  vivisection,  gives 
1  "  The  Rights  of  an  Animal,"  by  E.  B.  Nicholson,  1879. 


EXPERIMENTAL    TORTURE.  // 

away,   it  will  be  observed,  the  whole  case  of  animals' 
rights. 

The  assertion,  commonly  made  by  the  apologists  of 
the  Scientific  Inquisition,  that  vivisection  is  justified  by 
its  utility — that  it  is,  in  fact,  indispensable  to  the  ad- 
vance of  knowledge  and  civilization  ^ — is  founded  on  a 
mere  half-view  of  the  position ;  the  scientist,  as  I  have 
already  remarked,  is  a  half-enlightened  man.  Let  us 
assume  (a  large  assumption,  certainly,  controverted  as  it 
is  by  some  most  weighty  medical  testimony)  that  the 
progress  of  surgical  science  is  assisted  by  the  experiments 
of  the  vivisector.  What  then  ?  Before  rushing  to  the 
conclusion  that  vivisection  is  justifiable  on  that  account, 
a  wise  man  will  take  into  full  consideration  the  other, 
the  moral  side  of  the  question — the  hideous  injustice  of 
torturing  an  innocent  animal,  and  the  terrible  wrong 
thereby  done  to  the  humane  sense  of  the  community. 

The  wise  scientist  and  the  wise  humanist  are  identical. 
A  true  science  cannot  possibly  ignore  the  solid  incontro- 
vertible fact,  that  the  practice  of  vivisection  is  revolting 
to  the  human  conscience,  even  among  the  ordinary 
members  of  a  not  over-sensitive  society.     The  so-called 

^  The  medical  argument  of  "  utility  "  has  always  been  held  in 
tein'orem  over  the  unscientific  assertion  of  animals'  rights.  Por- 
phyry, writing  in  the  third  century,  quotes  the  following  from 
Claudius  the  Neapolitan,  author  of  a  treatise  against  abstinence 
from  animal  food.  "  How  many  will  be  prevented  from  having 
their  diseases  cured,  if  animals  are  abstained  from  !  For  we  see 
that  those  who  are  blind  recover  their  sight  by  eating  a  viper. " 
Some  of  the  results  that  scientists  "see"  nowadays  may  appear 
equally  strange  to  posterity  I 


7S  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

' '  science  ' '  (we  are  compelled  unfortunately,  in  common 
parlance,  to  use  the  word  in  this  specialized  technical 
meaning)  which  deliberately  overlooks  this  fact,  and 
confines  its  view  to  the  material  aspects  of  the  problem, 
is  not  science  at  all,  but  a  one-sided  assertion  of  the 
views  which  find  favour  with  a  particular  class  of  men. 

Nothing  is  necessary  which  is  abhorrent,  revolting, 
intolerable,  to  the  general  instincts  of  humanity.  Better 
a  thousand  times  that  science  should  forego  or  postpone 
the  questionable  advantage  of  certain  problematical  dis- 
coveries, than  that  the  moral  conscience  of  the  commu- 
nity should  be  unmistakably  outraged  by  the  confusion  of 
right  and  wrong.  The  short  cut  is  not  always  the  right 
path ;  and  to  perpetrate  a  cruel  injustice  on  the  lower 
animals,  and  then  attempt  to  excuse  it  on  the  ground 
that  it  will  benefit  posterity,  is  an  argument  which  is  as 
irrelevant  as  it  is  immoral.  Ingenious  it  may  be  (in  the 
way  of  hoodwinking  the  unwary)  but  it  is  certainly  in 
no  true  sense  scientific. 

If  there  be  one  bright  spot,  one  refreshing  oasis,  in 
the  discussion  of  this  dreary  subject,  it  is  the  humorous 
recurrence  of  the  old  threadbare  fallacy  of  ' '  better  for 
the  animals  themselves. ' '  Yes,  even  here,  in  the  labo- 
ratory of  the  vivisector,  amidst  the  baking  and  sawing 
and  dissection,  we  are  sometimes  met  by  that  familiar 
friend — the  proud  plea  of  a  single-hearted  regard  for  the 
interests  of  the  suffering  animals  !  Who  knows  but  what 
some  beneficent  experimentalist,  if  only  he  be  permitted 
to  cut  up  a  sufficient  number  of  victims,  may  discover 
some  potent  remedy  for  all  the  lamented  ills  of  the  ani- 


EXPERIMENTAL   TORTURE,  79 

mal  as  well  as  of  the  human  creation  ?  Can  we  doubt 
that  the  victims  themselves,  if  once  they  could  realize 
the  noble  object  of  their  martyrdom,  would  vie  with 
each  other  in  rushing  eagerly  on  the  knife  ?  The  only 
marvel  is  that,  where  the  cause  is  so  meritorious,  no  Jm- 
vian  volunteer  has  as  yet  come  forward  to  die  under  the 
hands  of  the  vivisector  !  ^ 

It  is  fully  admitted  that  experiments  on  men  would  be 
far  more  valuable  and  conclusive  than  experiments  on 
animals ;  yet  scientists  usually  disavow  any  wish  to  re- 
vive these  practices,  and  indignantly  deny  the  rumours, 
occasionally  circulated,  that  the  poorer  patients  in  hos- 
pitals are  the  subjects  of  such  anatomical  curiosity. 
Now  here,  it  will  be  observed,  in  the  case  of  men,  the  f !  , 
moi'al  ds^toX  of  vivisection  is  admitted  by  the  scientist 
as  a  matter  of  course,  yet  in  the  case  of  animals  it  is  al-  .  • 
lowed  no  weight  whatever  !  How  can  this  strange  in- 
consistency be  justified,  unless  on  the  assumption  that 
men  have  rights,  but  animals  have  no  rights — in  other 
words,  that  animals  are  mere  things,  possessed  of  no 
purpose,  and  no  claim  on  the  justice  and  forbearance 
of  the  community  ? 

One  of  the  most  notable  and  ominous  features  in  the 
apologies  offered  for  vivisection  is  the  assertion,  so  com- 

^  It  is  true,  however,  that  Lord  Aberdare,  in  presiding  over  the 
last  annual  meeting  of  the  Royal  Society  for  the  Prevention  of 
Cruelty  to  Animals,  and  in  warning  the  society  against  entering 
on  an  anti-vivisection  crusade,  gave  utterance  to  the  delightfully 
comical  remark  that  he  had  himself  been  thrice  operated  on,  and  j 
was  all  the  better  for  it !  / 


8o  ANIMALS'  RIGHTS. 

monly  made  by  scientific  writers,  that  it  is  "  no  worse  " 
than  certain  kindred  practices.  When  the  upholders  of 
any  accused  institution  begin  to  plead  that  it  is  "  no 
worse ' '  than  other  institutions,  we  may  feel  quite  as- 
sured that  the  case  is  a  very  bad  one  indeed — it  is  the 
drowning  man  catching  at  the  last  straw  and  shred  of 
argument.  Thus  the  advocates  of  experimental  torture 
are  reduced  to  the  expedient  of  laying  stress  on  the 
cruelties  of  the  butcher  and  the  herdsman,  and  inquir- 
ing why,  if  pole-axing  and  castration  are  permissible, 
vivisection  may  not  also  be  permitted.^  Sport,  also,  is 
a  practice  which  has  greatly  shocked  the  susceptibilities 
of  the  humane  vivisector.  A  writer  in  the  ''  Fortnight- 
ly Review ' '  has  defined  sport  as  '■ '  the  love  of  the  clever 
destruction  of  living  things,"  and  has  calculated  that 
three  millions  of  animals  are  yearly  mangled  by  English 
sportsmen,  in  addition  to  those  killed  outright."  ^ 

Now  if  the  attack  on  vivisection  emanated  primarily 
or  wholly  from  the  apologists  of  the  sportsman  and 
slaughterer,  this  tu  quoqite  of  the  scientist's  must  be  al- 
lowed to  be  a  smart,  though  rather  flippant,  retort ;  but 
when  all  cruelty  is  arraigned  as  inhuman  and  unjustifi- 
able, an  evasive  answer  of  this  kind  ceases  to  have  any 
relevancy  or  pertinence.  Let  us  admit,  however,  that, 
in  contrast  with  the  childish  brutality  of  the  sportsman, 
the  undoubted  seriousness  and  conscientiousness  of  the 
vivisector  (for  I  do  not  question  that  he  acts  from  con- 

'  See  J.  Cotter  Morrison's  article  on  "  Scientific  versus  Bucolic 
Vivisection,"  "  Fortnightly  Review,"  1885. 

^  Professor  Jevons,  "  Fortnightly  Review,"  1876. 


EXPERIMENTAL   TORTURE.  8 1 

scientious  motives)  may  be  counted  to  his  advantage. 
But  then  we  have  to  remember,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
the  conscientious  man,  when  he  goes  wrong,  is  far  more 
dangerous  to  society  than  the  knave  or  the  fool ;  indeed, 
the  special  horror  of  vivisection  consists  precisely  in  this 
fact,  that  it  is  not  due  to  mere  thoughtlessness  and  igno- 
rance, but  represents  a  deliberate,  avowed,  conscientious 
invasion  of  the  very  principle  of  animals'  rights. 

I  have  already  said  that  it  is  idle  to  speculate  which  is 
the  worst  form  of  cruelty  to  animals,  for  certainly  in  this 
subject,  if  anywhere,  we  must  ''reject  the  lore  of  nicely 
calculated  less  or  more."  Vivisection,  if  there  be  any 
truth  at  all  in  the  principle  for  which  I  am  contending, 
is  not  the  root,  but  the  fine  flower  and  consummation  of 
barbarity  and  injustice — the  ne phts  ultra  of  iniquity  in 
man's  dealings  with  the  lower  races.  The  root  of  the 
evil  lies,  as  I  have  throughout  asserted,  in  that  detestable 
assumption  (detestable  equally  whether  it  be  based  on 
pseudo-religious  or  pseudo-scientific  grounds)  that  there 
is  a  gulf,  an  impassable  barrier,  between  man  and  the 
animals,  and  that  the  moral  instincts  of  compassion, 
justice,  and  love,  are  to  be  as  sedulously  repressed  and 
thwarted  in  the  one  direction  as  they  are  to  be  fostered 
and  extended  in  the  other. 

For  this  very  reason  our  crusade  against  the  Scientific  '^ 
Inquisition,   to   be    thorough   and    successful,    must    be 
founded  on  the  rock  of  consistent  opposition  to  cruelty 
in   every   form   and  phase ;    it  is  useless  to  denounce    - 
vivisection  as  the  source  of  all  inhumanities,  and,  while  ;' 
demanding  its  immediate  suppression,   to   suppose  that  ^ 
6 


82  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

Other  minor  questions  may  be  indefinitely  postponed. 
It  is  true  that  the  actual  emancipation  of  the  lower 
races,  as  of  the  human,  can  only  proceed  step  by  step, 
and  that  it  is  both  natural  and  politic  to  strike  first  at 
what  is  most  repulsive  to  the  public  conscience.  I  am 
not  depreciating  the  wisdom  of  such  a  concentration  of 
effort  on  any  particular  point,  but  warning  my  readers 
against  the  too  common  tendency  to  forget  the  general 
principle  that  underlies  each  individual  protest. 

The  spirit  in  which  we  approach  these  matters  should 
be  a  liberal  and  far-seeing  one.  Those  who  work  for 
the  abolition  of  vivisection,  or  any  other  particular 
wrong,  should  do  so  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  captur- 
ing one  stronghold  of  the  enemy,  not  because  they  be- 
lieve that  the  war  will  then  be  over,  but  because  they 
will  be  able  to  use  the  position  thus  gained  as  an  ad- 
vantageous starting-point  for  still  further  progression. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

LINES     OF     REFORM. 

Having  now  applied  the  principle  with  which  we 
started  to  the  several  cases  where  it  appears  to  be  most 
flagrantly  overlooked,  we  are  in  a  better  position  to 
estimate  the  difficulties  and  the  possibilities  of  its  future 
acceptance.  Our  investigation  of  animals'  rights  has 
necessarily  been,  in  large  measure,  an  enumeration  of 
animals'  wrongs,  a  story  of  cruelty  and  injustice  which 
might  have  been  unfolded  in  far  greater  and  more  im- 
pressive detail,  had  there  been  any  reason  for  here  re- 
peating what  has  been  elsewhere  established  by  other 
writers  beyond  doubt  or  dispute. 

But  my  main  purpose  was  to  deal  with  a  general 
theory  rather  than  with  particular  instances  ;  and  enough 
has  already  been  said  to  show  that  while  man  has  much 
cause  to  be  grateful  to  the  lower  animals  for  the  innu- 
merable services  rendered  by  them,  he  can  hardly  pride 
himself  on  the  record  of  the  counter-benefits  which  they 
have  received  at  his  hands.  ''If  we  consider,"  says 
Primatt,  ''  the  excruciating  injuries  offered  on  our  part 
to  the  brutes,  and  the  patience  on  their  part ;  how  fre- 
quent our  provocation,  and  how  seldom  their  resent- 
ment (and  in  some  cases  our  Aveakness  and  //z^/r  strength, 


84  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

our  slowness  and  their  swiftness)  one  would  be  almost 
tempted  to  suppose  that  the  brutes  had  combined  in  one 
general  scheme  of  benevolence,  to  teach  mankind  lessons 
of  mercy  and  meekness  by  their  own  forbearance  and 
longsuffering. ' ' 

It  is  unwise,  no  doubt,  to  dwell  too  exclusively  on  the 
wrongs  of  which  animals  are  the  victims  ;  it  is-still  more 
unwise  to  ignore  them  as  they  are  to-day  ignored  by  the 
large  majority  of  mankind.  It  is  full  time  that  this 
question  were  examined  in  the  light  of  some  rational  and 
guiding  principle,  and  that  we  ceased  to  drift  helplessly 
between  the  extremes  of  total  indifference  on  the  one 
hand,  and  spasmodic,  partially-applied  compassion  on 
the  other.  We  have  had  enough,  and  too  much,  of 
trifling  Math  this  or  that  isolated  aspect  of  the  subject, 
and  of  playing  off  the  exposure  of  somebody  else's  insen- 
sibility by  way  of  a  balance  for  our  own,  as  if  a  tu  qiioque 
were  a  sufficient  justification  of  a  man's  moral  delinquen- 
cies. 

The  terrible  sufferings  that  are  quite  needlessly  in- 
flicted on  the  lower  animals  under  the  plea  of  domestic 
usage,  food-demands,  sport,  fashion,  and  science,  are 
patent  to  all  who  have  the  seeing  eye  and  the  feeling 
heart  to  apprehend  them ;  those  sufferings  will  not  be 
lessened,  nor  will  man's  responsibility  be  diminished  by 
any  such  irrelevant  assertions  as  that  vivisection  is  less 
cruel  than  sport,  or  sport  less  cruel  than  butchering, — 
nor  yet  by  the  contrary  contention  that  vivisection,  or 
sport,  or  flesh-eating,  as  the  case  may  be,  is  the  one  prime 
origin  of  all  human  inhumanity.      We  want  a  compre- 


LINES   OF  REFORM.  85 

hensive  principle  which  will  cover  all  these  varying  in- 
stances, and  determine  the  true  lines  of  reform. 

Such  a  principle,  as  I  have  throughout  insisted,  can 
only  be  found  in  the  recognition  of  the  right  of  animals, 
as  of  men,  to  be  exempt  from  any  unnecessary  suffering        1 
or  serfdom,  the  right  to  Hve  a  natural  life  of  "  restricted        j 
freedom,"  subject  to  the  real,  not  supposed  or  pretended, 
requirements  of  the  general  community.     It  may  be  said,      ^ 
and  with  truth,  that  the  perilous  vagueness  of  the  word 
''  necessary  ' '  must  leave  a  convenient  loop-hole  of  escape 
to    anyone  who  wishes  to  justify  his  own  treatment  of 
animals,  however  unjustifiable  that  treatment  may  appear; 
the  vivisector  will  assert  that  his  practice  is  necessary  in 
the  interests  of  science,  the  flesh-eater  that  he   cannot 
maintain  his  health  without  animal  food,    and   so    on 
through  the  whole  category  of  systematic  oppression. 

The  difficulty  is  an  inevitable  one.     No  form  of  words 
can  be  devised  for  the  expression  of  rights,  human  or 
animal,  which  is  not  liable  to  some  sort  of  evasion  ;  and       * 
all  that  can  be  done  is  to  fix  the  responsibihty  of  deciding 
between  what  is  necessary  and  unnecessary,  between  fac- 
titious personal  wants  and  genuine  social  demands,  on    *•  t 
those  in  whom  is  vested  the  power  of  exacting  the  ser-        I 
vice  or  sacrifice  required.     The  appeal  being  thus  made, 
and  the  issue  thus  stated,  it  may  be  confidently  trusted    ^ 
that  the  personal  conscience  of  individuals  and  the  pubhc     %\ 
conscience  of  the  nation,  acting  and  reacting  in  turn  on 
each  other,  will  slowly  and  surely  work  out  the  only 
possible  solution  of  this  difficult  and  many-sided  problem. 

For  that  the  difficulties  involved  in  this  animal  ques- 


V 


S6  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

tion  are  many  and  serious,  no  one,  I  imagine,  would 
dispute,  and  certainly  no  attempt  has  been  made  or  will 
be  made,  in  this  essay  to  minimise  or  deny  them.  It 
may  suit  the  purpose  of  those  who  would  retard  all  hu- 
manitarian progress  to  represent  its  advocates  as  mere 
dreamers  and  sentimentalists — men  and  women  who  be- 
fool themselves  by  shutting  their  eyes  to  the  fierce  strug- 
gle that  is  everywhere  being  waged  in  the  world  of 
nature,  while  they  point  with  virtuous  indignation  to  the 
iniquities  perpetrated  by  man.  But  it  is  possible  to  be 
quite  free  from  any  such  sentimental  illusions,  and  yet  to 
hold  a  very  firm  belief  in  the  principle  of  animals'  rights. 
We  do  not  deny,  or  attempt  to  explain  away,  the  exist- 
ence of  evil  in  nature,  or  the  fact  that  the  life  of  the  lower 
races,  as  of  mankind,  is  based  to  a  large  degree  on  rapine 
and  violence  ;  nor  can  we  pretend  to  say  whether  this  evil 
will  ever  be  wholly  amended.  It  is  therefore  confessedly 
impossible,  at  the  present  time,  to  formulate  an  entirely 
and  logically  consistent  philosophy  of  rights ;  but  that 
would  be  a  poor  argument  against  grappling  with  the 
subject  at  all. 

The  hard  unmistakable  facts  of  the  situation,  when 
viewed  in  their  entirety,  are  not  by  any  means  calculated 
to  inspire  with  confidence  the  opponents  of  humane  re- 
form. For,  if  it  be  true  that  internecine  competition  is 
a  great  factor  in  the  economy  of  nature,  it  is  no  less  true, 
as  has  been  already  pointed  out,  that  co-operation  is  also 
a  great  factor  therein.  Furthermore,  though  there  are 
many  difficulties  besetting  the  onward  path  of  humani- 
tarianism,  an  even  greater  difficulty  has  to  be  faced  by 


LINES   OF  REFORM,  8/ 

those  who  refuse  to  proceed  along  that  path,  viz.,  the 
fact — as  strong  a  fact  as  any  that  can  be  produced  on  the 
other  side — that  the  instinct  of  compassion  and  justice  to 
the  lower  animals  has  already  been  so  largely  developed 
in  the  human  conscience  as  to  obtain  legislative  recog- 
nition. If  the  theory  of  animals'  rights  is  a  mere  ideal- 
istic phantasy,  it  follows  that  we  have  long  ago  commit- 
ted ourselves  to  a  track  which  can  lead  us  no  whither. 
Is  it  then  proposed  that  we  should  retrace  our  steps,  with 
a  view  to  regaining  the  antique  position  of  savage  and 
consistent  callousness  ;  or  are  we  to  remain  perpetually 
in  our  present  meaningless  attitude,  admitting  the  moral 
value  of  a  partially  awakened  sensibility,  yet  opposing 
an  eternal  non  possumus  to  any  further  improvement  ? 
Neither  of  these  alternatives  is  for  a  moment  conceivable  ; 
it  is  perfectly  certain  that  there  will  still  be  a  forward 
movement,  and  along  the  same  lines  as  in  the  past. 

Nor  need  we  be  at  all  disconcerted  by  the  derisive  en- 
quiries of  our  antagonists  as  to  the  final  outcome  of  such 
theories.  ''There  is  some  reason  to  hope,"  said  the 
author  of  the  ironical  ''  Vindication  of  the  Rights  of 
Brutes,"  ''  that  this  essay  will  soon  be  followed  by  trea- 
tises on  the  rights  of  vegetables  and  minerals,  and  that  thus 
the  doctrine  of  perfect  equaUtywill  become  universal." 
To  which  suggestion  we  need  only  answer,  ''Perhaps." 
It  is  for  each  age  to  initiate  its  own  ethical  reforms,  ac- 
cording to  the  light  and  sensibihty  of  its  own  instincts ; 
further  and  more  abstruse  questions,  at  present  insoluble, 
may  safely  be  left  to  the  more  mature  judgment  of  pos- 
terity.     The  human  conscience  furnishes  the  safest  and 


88  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

simplest  indicator  in  these  matters.  We  know  that  cer- 
tain acts  of  injustice  affect  us  as  they  did  not  affect  our 
forefathers — it  is  our  duty  to  set  these  right.  It  is  not 
our  duty  to  agitate  problems,  which,  at  the  present  date, 
excite  no  unmistakable  moral  feeling. 

The  humane  instinct  will  assuredly  continue  to  de- 
velope.  And  it  should  be  observed  that  to  advocate  the 
rights  of  animals  is  far  more  than  to  plead  for  compassion 
or  justice  towards  the  victims  of  ill-usage  ;  it  is  not  only, 
and  not  primarily,  for  the  sake  of  the  victims  that  we 
plead,  but  for  the  sake  of  mankind  itself.  Our  true  civ- 
ilisation, our  race-progress,  our  humanity  (in  the  best 
sense  of  the  term)  are  concerned  in  this  development ;  it 
is  ourselves,  our  own  vital  instincts,  that  we  wrong, 
when  we  trample  on  the  rights  of  the  fellow-beings,  hu- 
man or  animal,  over  whom  we  chance  to  hold  jurisdic- 
tion. It  has  been  admirably  said^  that,  'terrible  as  is 
the  lot  of  the  subjects  of  cruelty  and  injustice,  that  of  the 
perpetrators  is  even  worse,  by  reason  of  the  debasement 
and  degradation  of  character  implied  and  incurred.  For 
the  principles  of  Humanity  cannot  be  renounced  with 
impunity ;  but  their  renunciation,  if  persisted  in,  in- 
volves inevitably  the  forfeiture  of  Humanity  itself.  And 
to  cease  through  such  forfeiture  to  be  man  is  to  become 
demon." 

This  most  important  point  is  constantly  overlooked 
by  the  opponents  of  humanitarian  reform.  They  labour, 
unsuccessfully  enough,  to  minimise  the  complaints  of 
animals'  wrongs,  on  the  plea  that  these  wrongs,  though 

^  Edward  Maitland  ;  Address  to  the  Humanitarian  League. 


LINES    OF  REFORM.  89 

great,  are  not  so  great  as  they  are  represented  to  be, 
and  that  in  any  case  it  is  not  possible,  or  not  urgently 
desirable,  for  man  to  alleviate  them.  As  if  huma?i 
interests  also  were  not  intimately  bound  up  in  every 
such  compassionate  endeavour  !  The  case  against  in- 
justice to  animals  stands,  in  this  respect,  on  exactly  the 
same  grounds  as  that  against  injustice  to  man,  and  may 
be  illustrated  by  some  suggestive  words  of  De  Quincey's 
on  the  typical  subject  of  corporal  punishment.  This 
practice,  he  remarks,  ''is  usually  argued  with  a  single 
reference  to  the  case  of  him  who  suffers  it ;  and  so 
argued,  God  knows  that  it  is  worthy  of  all  abhorrence  : 
but  the  weightiest  argument  against  it  is  the  foul  indig- 
nity which  is  offered  to  our  common  nature  lodged  in 
the  person  of  him  on  whom  it  is  inflicted." 

And  this  brings  us  back  to  the  moral  of  the  whole 
matter.  The  idea  of  Humanity  is  no  longer  confined 
to  man ;  it  is  beginning  to  extend  itself  to  the  lower 
animals,  as  in  the  past  it  has  been  gradually  extended  to 
savages  and  slaves.  ''  Behold  the  animals.  There  is 
not  one  but  the  human  soul  lurks  within  it,  fulfilling  its 
destiny  as  surely  as  within  you."  So  writes  the  author 
of  ''Towards  Democracy;  "  and  what  has  long  been 
felt  by  the  poet  is  now  being  scientifically  corroborated 
by  the  anthropologist  and  philosopher.  "The  stand- 
point of  modern  thought,"  says  Biichner,^  "  no  longer  rec- 
ognises in  animals  a  difference  of  kind,  but  only  a  dif- 
ference of  degree,  and  sees  the  principle  of  intelligence 
developing  through  an  endless  and  unbroken  series." 
^  "  Mind  in  Animals,"  translated  by  Annie  Besant. 


90  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

It  is  noteworthy  that,  on  this  point,  evolutionary 
science  finds  itself  in  agreement  with  oriental  tradition. 
^'  The  doctrine  of  metempsychosis/ '  says  Strauss/  ''  knits 
men  and  beasts  together  here  [in  the  East],  and  unites 
the  whole  of  Nature  in  one  sacred  and  mysterious  bond. 
The  breach  between  the  two  was  opened  in  the  first 
place  by  Judaism,  with  its  hatred  of  the  Gods  of  Nat- 
ure, next  by  the  dualism  of  Christianity.  It  is  remark- 
able that  at  present  a  deeper  sympathy  with  the  animal 
world  should  have  arisen  among  the  more  civilized 
nations,  which  manifests  itself  here  and  there  in  socie- 
ties for  the  prevention  of  cruelty  to  animals.  It  is  thus 
apparent  that  what  on  the  one  hand  is  the  product  of 
modern  science — -the  giving  up  of  the  spiritualistic  isola- 
tion of  man  from  Nature — reveals  itself  simultaneously 
through  the  channel  of  popular  sentiment." 

It  is  not  human  life  only  that  is  lovable  and  sacred, 
but  all  innocent  and  beautiful  life :  the  great  republic 
of  the  future  will  not  confine  its  beneficence  to  man. 
The  isolation  of  man  from  Nature,  by  our  persistent 
culture  of  the  ratiocinative  faculty,  and  our  persistent 
neglect  of  the  instinctive,  has  hitherto  been  the  penalty 
we  have  had  to  pay  for  our  incomplete  and  partial 
^'  civilization  ;  "  there  are  many  signs  that  the  tendency 
will  now  be  towards  that  ''Return  to  Nature"  of 
which  Rousseau  was  the  prophet.  But  let  it  not  for  a 
moment  be  supposed  that  an  acceptance  of  the  gospel  of 
Nature  implies  an  abandonment  or  depreciation  of  intel- 
lect— on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  assertion  that  reason  itself 

1  "  The  Old  Faith  and  the  New,"  translated  by  Mathilde  Blind. 


LINES   OF  REFORM.  9 1 

can  never  be  at  its  best,  can  never  be  truly  rational, 
except  when  it  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  deep- 
seated  emotional  instincts  and  sympathies  which  underlie 
all  thought. 

The  true  scientist  and  humanist  is  he  who  will  rec- 
oncile brain  to  heart,  and  show  us  how,  without  any 
sacrifice  of  what  we  have  gained  in  knowledge,  we  may 
resume  what  we  have  temporarily  lost  during  the  process 
of  acquiring  that  knowledge — the  sureness  of  intuitive 
faculty  which  is  originally  implanted  in  men  and  ani- 
mals alike.  Only  by  this  return  to  the  common  fount 
of  feeling  will  it  be  possible  for  man  to  place  himself  in 
right  relationship  towards  the  lower  animals,  and  to 
break  down  the  fatal  barrier  of  antipathy  that  he  has 
himself  erected.  If  we  contrast  the  mental  and  moral 
attitude  of  the  generality  of  mankind  towards  the  lower 
races  with  that  of  such  men  as  St.  Francis  or  Thoreau, 
we  see  what  far-reaching  possibilities  still  lie  before  us 
on  this  line  of  development,  and  what  an  immense 
extension  is  even  now  waiting  to  be  given  to  our  most 
advanced  ideas  of  social  unity  and  brotherhood. 

I  have  already  remarked  on  the  frequent  and  not  al- 
together unjustifiable  complaint  against  "lovers  of  an- 
imals," that  they  are  often  indifferent  to  the  struggle  for 
human  rights,  while  they  concern  themselves  so  eagerly 
over  the  interests  of  the  lower  races.  Equally  true  is 
the  converse  statement,  that  many  earnest  reformers 
and  philanthropists,  men  who  have  a  genuine  passion 
for  human  liberty  and  progress,  are  coldly  sceptical  or 
even  bitterly  hostile  on  the  subject  of  the  rights  of  ani- 


92  AMIMALS'   RIGHTS, 

mals.  This  organic  limitation  of  sympathies  must  be 
recognised  and  regretted,  but  it  is  worse  than  useless 
for  the  one  class  of  reformers  to  indulge  in  blame  or  re- 
crimination against  the  other.  It  is  certain  that  they 
are  both  working  towards  the  same  ultimate  end  ;  and 
if  they  cannot  actually  co-operate,  they  may  at  least  re- 
frain from  unnecessarily  thwarting  and  opposing  each 
other. 

The  principles  of  justice,  if  they  are  to  make  solid 
and  permanent  headway,  must  be  applied  with  thorough- 
ness and  consistency.  If  there  are  rights  of  animals, 
there  must  a  fortiori  be  rights  of  men  ;  and,  as  I  have 
shown,  it  is  impossible  to  maintain  that  an  admission 
of  human  rights  does  not  involve  an  admission  of  ani- 
mals' rights  also.  Now  it  may  not  always  fall  to  the  lot 
of  the  same  persons  to  advocate  both  kinds  of  rights, 
but  these  rights  are,  nevertheless,  being  simultaneously 
and  concurrently  advocated ;  and  those  who  are  in  a 
position  to  take  a  clear  and  wide  survey  of  the  whole 
humanitarian  movement  are  aware  that  its  final  success 
is  dependent  on  this  broad  onward  tendency.  "Man 
will  not  be  truly  man,"  says  Michelet,  "until  he  shall 
labour  seriously  for  that  which  the  earth  expects  from 
him — the  pacification  and  harmonious  union  of  all  liv- 
ing Nature." 

The  advent   of    democracy,    imperfect    though    any 
democracy  must  be  which  does  not  embrace  all  living 
"^ things  within  its  scope,  will  be  of  enormous  assistance 
to  the  cause  of  animals'  rights,  for  under  the  present  un- 
equal and  inequitable  social  system  there  is  no  possibil- 


LINES   OF  REFORM.  93 

ity  of  those  claims  receiving  their  due  share  of  attention. 
In  the  rush  and  hurry  of  a  competitive  society,  where 
commercial  profit  is  avowed  to  be  the  main  object  of 
work,  and  where  the  well-being  of  men  and  women  is 
ruthlessly  sacrificed  to  that  object,  what  likelihood  is 
there  that  the  lower  animals  will  not  be  used  with  a 
sole  regard  to  the  same  predominant  purpose  ?  Humane 
individuals  may  here  and  there  protest,  and  the  growing 
conscience  of  the  public  may  express  itself  in  legislation 
against  the  worst  forms  of  palpable  ill-usage,  but  the 
bulk  of  the  people  simply  cannot,  and  will  not,  afford  to 
treat  animals  as  they  ought  to  be  treated.  Do  the 
wealthy  classes  show  any  such  consideration?  Let 
''amateur  butchery"  and  ''murderous  millinery"  be 
the  answer.  Can  it  be  wondered,  then,  that  the 
"  lower  classes,"  whose  own  rights  are  existent  far  more 
in  theory  than  in  fact,  should  exhibit  a  feeling  of  stolid 
indifference  to  the  rights  of  the  still  lower  animals  ? 

It  has  been  said  that,  "  If  in  a  mob  of  Londoners, 
Parisians,  New  Yorkers,  Berliners,  Melbourners,  a  dove 
fluttered  down  to  seek  a  refuge,  a  hundred  dirty  hands 
would  be  stretched  out  to  seize  it,  and  wring  its  neck ; 
and  if  anyone  tried  to  save  and  cherish  it,  he  would  be 
rudely  bonneted,  and  mocked,  and  hustled  amidst  the 
brutal  guffaws  of  roughs,  lower  and  more  hideous  in 
aspect  and  in  nature  than  any  animal  which  lives."  ^ 
This  may  be  so  ;  yet  it  must  be  remembered  that  it  is 
not  the  people,  but  the  lords,  who  have  hitherto  pre- 
vented the  suppression,  in  England  at  any  rate,  of  the 
^  Ouida,  "  Fortnightly  Review,"  April,  1892. 


94  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

infamous  pastime  of  pigeon-shooting.  It  is  to  the 
democracy,  and  the  democratic  sense  of  kinship  and 
brotherhood,  extending  first  to  mankind,  and  then  to 
the  lower  races,  that  we  must  look  for  future  progress. 
The  emancipation  of  men  will  bring  with  it  another 
and  still  wider  emancipation — of  animals. 

In  conclusion  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  this 
practical  problem — by  what  immediate  means  can  we 
best  provide  for  the  attainment  of  the  end  we  have  in 
view?  What  are  the  surest  remedies  for  the  present 
wrongs,  and  the  surest  pledges  for  the  future  rights,  of 
the  victims  of  human  supremacy  ?  The  answer,  I  think, 
must  be  that  there  are  two  pre-eminently  important 
methods  which  are  sometimes  regarded  as  contradictory 
in  principle,  but  which,  as  I  hope  to  show,  are  not  only 
quite  compatible,  but  even  mutually  serviceable  and  to 
some  degree  inter-dependent.  We  have  no  choice  but 
to  work  by  one  or  the  other  of  these  methods,  and,  if 
we  are  wise,  we  shall  endeavour  to  work  by  both  simul- 
taneously, using  the  first  as  our  chief  instrument  of  re- 
form, the  second  as  an  auxiliary  and  supplementary  in- 
strument. The  two  methods  to  which  I  allude  are  the 
educational  and  the  legislative. 

I.  Education,  in  the  largest  sense  of  the  term,  has 
always  been,  and  must  always  remain,  the  antecedent 
and  indispensable  condition  of  humanitarian  progress. 
Very  excellent  are  the  words  of  John  Bright  on  the  sub- 
ject (let  us  forget  for  the  nonce  that  he  was  an  angler). 
*'  Humanity  to  animals  is  a  great  point.  If  I  were  a 
teacher  in  a  school,  I  would  make  it  a  very  important 


LI.VES   OF  REFORM.  95 

part  of  my  business  to  impress  every  boy  and  girl  with  the 
duty  of  his  or  her  being  kind  to  all  animals.  It  is  im- 
possible to  say  how  much  suffering  there  is  in  the  world 
from  the  barbarity  or  unkindness  which  people  show  to 
what  we  call  the  inferior  creatures." 

It  may  be  doubted,  however,  whether  the  young  will 
ever  be  specially  impressed  with  the  lesson  of  humanity 
as  long  as  the  general  tone  of  their  elders  and  instructors 
is  one  of  cynical  indifference,  if  not  of  absolute  hostility, 
to  the  recognition  of  animals'  rights.^  It  is  society  as  a 
whole,  and  not  one  class  in  particular,  that  needs  en- 
lightenment and  remonstrance ;  in  fact,  the  very  con- 
ception and  scope  of  what  is  known  as  a  "  liberal  educa- 
tion "  must  be  revolutionized  and  extended.  For  if  we 
find  fault  with  the  narrow  and  unscientific  spirit  of  what 
is  known  as  ' '  science, ' '  we  must  in  fairness  admit  that 
our  academic  ''humanities,"  the  Hterce  humaniores  of 
colleges  and  schools,  together  with  much  of  our  modern 
culture  and  refinement,  are  scarcely  less  deficient  in  that 
quickening  spirit  of  sympathetic  brotherhood,  without 
which  all  the  accomplishments  that  the  mind  of  man  can 
devise  are  as  the  borrowed  cloak  of  an  imperfectly  real- 
ized civilization,  assumed  by  some  barbarous  tribe  but 
half  emerged  from  savagery.  This  divorce  of  ''  human- 
ism "  from  humaneness  is  one  of  the  subtlest  dangers  by 
which  society  is  beset;  for,  if  we  grant  that  love  needs 

^  "  They  tell  children,  perhaps,  that  they  must  not  be  cruel  to 
animals  ....  what  avails  all  the  fine  talk  about  morality,  in  con- 
trast with  acts  of  barbarism  and  immorality  presented  to  them  on 
all  sides  ?"^ — Gustav  von  Struve. 


96  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

to  be  tempered  and  directed  by  wisdom,  still  more  need- 
ful is  it  that  wisdom  should  be  informed  and  vitalized 
by  love. 

It  is  therefore  not  only  our  children  who  need  to  be 
educated  in  the  proper  treatment  of  animals,  but  our 
scientists,  our  religionists,  our  moralists,  and  our  men  of 
letters.  For  in  spite  of  the  vast  progress  of  humanitarian 
ideas  during  the  present  century,  it  must  be  confessed 
that  the  popular  exponents  of  western  thought  ^  are  still 
for  the  most  part  quite  unable  to  appreciate  the  pro- 
found truth  of  those  words  of  Rousseau,  which  should 
form  the  basis  of  an  enhghtened  system  of  instruction  : 
'' Hommes,  soyez  humains  !  C'est  votre  premier  de- 
voir. Quelle  sagesse  y  a-t-il  pour  vous,  hors  de  I'hu- 
manite  ?  ' ' 

But  how  is  this  vast  educational  change  to  be  inau- 
gurated— let  alone  accomplished  ?  Like  all  far-reaching 
reforms  which  are  promoted  by  a  few  believers  in  the 
face  of  the  public  indifferentism,  it  can  only  be  carried 
through  by  the  energy  and  resolution  of  its  supporters. 

'  Eastern  thought  has  always  been  far  humaner  than  western, 
however  deplorably  in  the  East  also  practicejnay  lag-  behind  pro- 
fession. In  an  interesting  book  lately  published  ("  Man  and  Beast 
in  India,"  by  J.  Lockwood  Kipling),  an  extremely  unfavourable 
account  is  given  of  the  Hindoo  treatment  of  animals.  The  alleged 
kindness  of  the  natives,  says  the  author,  is  nothing  better  than  "  a 
vague  reluctance  to  take  life  by  a  sudden  positive  act,"  and  "  does 
not  preserve  the  ox,  the  horse,  and  the  ass  from  being  unmercifully 
beaten,  over-driven,  over-laden,  under- fed,  and  worked  with  sores 
under  their  harness."  But  he  admits  that  "a  more  humane  tem- 
per prevails  with  regard  to  free  creatures  than  in  the  west." 


LINES   OF  REFORM.  97 

The  efforts  which  the  various  humane  societies  are  now 
making  in  special  directions,  each  concentrating  its  at- 
tack on  a  particular  abuse,  must  be  supplemented  and 
strengthened  by  a  crusade — an  intellectual,  literary,  and 
social  crusade— against  the  central  cause  of  oppression, 
viz.:  the  disregard  of  the  natural  kinship  between  man 
and  the  animals,  and  the  consequent  denial  of  their 
rights.  We  must  insist  on  having  the  whole  question 
fully  considered  and  candidly  discussed,  and  must  no 
longer  permit  its  most  important  issues  to  be  shirked 
because  it  does  not  suit  the  convenience  or  the  preju- 
dices of  comfortable  folk  to  give  attention  to  them. 

Above  all,  the  sense  of  ridicule  that  at  present  attaches 
to  the  supposed  ' '  sentimentalism  "  of  an  advocacy  of 
animals'  rights  must  be  faced  and  swept  away.  The 
fear  of  this  absurd  charge  deprives  the  cause  of  humanity 
of  many  workers  who  would  otherwise  lend  their  aid, 
and  accounts  in  part  for  the  unduly  diffident  and  apolo- 
getic tone  which  is  too  often  adopted  by  humanitarians. 
We  must  meet  this  ridicule,  and  retort  it  without  hesi- 
tation on  those  to  whom  it  properly  pertains.  The 
laugh  must  be  turned  against  the  true  ''cranks"  and 
''crotchet-mongers" — the  noodles  who  can  give  no 
wiser  reason  for  the  infliction  of  suffering  on  animals 
than  that  it  is  "better  for  the  animals  themselves" — 
the  flesh-eaters  who  labour  under  the  pious  belief  that 
animals  were  ' '  sent  "  us  as  food — the  silly  women  who 
imagine  that  the  corpse  of  a  bird  is  a  becoming  article 
of  head-gear — the  half-witted  sportsmen  who  vow  that 
the  vigour  of  the   English   race   is   dependent  on   the 


98  ANIMALS'  RIGHTS. 

practice  of  fox-hunting — and  the  half-enUghtened  scien- 
tists who  are  unaware  that  vivisection  has  moral  and 
spiritual,  no  less  than  physical,  consequences.  That 
many  of  our  arguments  are  mere  superficial  sword-play, 
and  do  not  touch  the  profound  emotional  sympathies  on 
which  the  cause  of  humanity  rests,  is  a  fact  which  does 
not  lessen  their  controversial  significance.  For  this  is  a 
case  where  those  who  take  the  sword  shall  perish  by  the 
sword ;  and  the  clever  men-of-the-world  who  twit  con- 
sistent humanitarians  with  sickly  sentimentality  may 
perhaps  discover  that  they  themselves — fixed  as  they  are 
in  an  ambiguous  and  utterly  untenable  position — are  the 
sickliest  sentimentalists  of  all. 

II.  Legislation,  where  the  protection  of  harmless  ani- 
mals is  concerned,  is  the  fit  supplement  and  sequel  to 
education,  and  the  objections  urged  against  it  are  for  the 
most  part  unreasonable.  It  must  inevitably  fail  in  its 
purpose,  say  some ;  for  how  can  the  mere  passing  of  a 
penal  statute  prevent  the  innumerable  unwitnessed  acts 
of  cruelty  and  oppression  which  make  up  the  great  total 
of  animal  suffering  ?  But  the  purpose  of  legislation  is 
not  merely  thus  preventive.  Legislation  is  the  record, 
the  register,  of  the  moral  sense  of  the  community;  it 
follows,  not  precedes,  the  development  of  that  moral 
sense,  but  nevertheless  in  its  turn  reacts  on  it,  strength- 
ens it,  and  secures  it  against  the  danger  of  retrocession. 
It  is  well  that  society  should  proclaim,  formally  and  de- 
cisively, its  abhorrence  of  certain  practices ;  and  I  do 
not  think  it  can  be  doubted,  by  those  who  have  studied 
the  history  of  the  movement,  that  the  general  treatment 


LINES   OF  REFORM.  99 

of  domestic  animals  in  England,  bad  as  it  still  is, 
would  be  infinitely  worse  at  this  day  but  for  the  pro- 
gressive and  punitive  legislation  that  dates  from  the 
passing  of  '^  Martin's  Act  "  in  1822. 

The  further  argument,  so  commonly  advanced,  that 
''  force  is  no  remedy,"  and  that  it  is  better  to  trust  to 
the  good  feeling  of  mankind  than  to  impose  a  legal  re- 
striction, is  an  amiable  criticism  which  might  doubtless 
be  applied  with  great  effect  to  a  large  majority  of  our 
existing  penal  enactments,  but  it  is  not  very  applicable 
to  the  case  under  discussion.  For  if  force  is  ever  allow- 
able, surely  it  is  so  when  it  is  applied  for  a  strictly  de- 
fensive purpose,  such  as  to  safeguard  the  weak  and  help- 
less from  violence  and  aggression.  The  protection  of 
animals  by  statute  marks  but  another  step  onward  in  that 
course  of  humanitarian  legislation  which,  among  numer- 
ous triumphs,  has  abolished  slavery  and  passed  the  Fac- 
tory Acts — always  in  the  teeth  of  this  same  time-hon- 
oured but  irrelevant  objection  that  ''  force  is  no  remedy. ' ' 
Equally  fatuous  is  the  assertion  that  the  administrators 
of  the  law  cannot  be  trusted  to  adjudicate  between  mas- 
ter and  "  beast."  It  was  long  ago  stated  by  Lord  Ers- 
kine  that  ^'  to  distinguish  the  severest  discipline,  for  en- 
forcing activity  and  commanding  obedience  in  such 
dependents,  from  brutal  ferocity  and  cruelty,  never  yet 
puzzled  a  judge  or  jury — never,  at  least,  in  my  long  ex- 
perience. ' ' 

Such  arguments  against  the  legal  protection  of  animals 
were  admirably  refuted  by  John  Stuart  Mill.  ^'The 
reasons  for  legal  intervention  in  favour  of  children,"  he 


100  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

said,  '  ^  apply  not  less  strongly  to  the  case  of  those  un- 
fortunate slaves  and  victims  of  the  most  brutal  part  of 
mankind,  the  lower  animals.  It  is  by  the  grossest  mis- 
understanding of  the  principles  of  Liberty  that  the  inflic- 
tion of  exemplary  punishment  on  ruffianism  practised 
towards  these  defenceless  beings  has  been  treated  as  a 
meddling  by  Government  with  things  beyond  its  prov- 
ince— an  interference  with  domestic  life.  The  domestic 
life  of  domestic  tyrants  is  one  of  the  things  which  it  is 
most  imperative  on  the  Law  to  interfere  with.  And  it 
is  to  be  regretted  that  metaphysical  scruples  respecting 
the  nature  and  source  of  the  authority  of  governments 
should  induce  many  warm  supporters  of  laws  against 
cruelty  to  the  lower  animals  to  seek  for  justification  of 
such  laws  in  the  incidental  consequences  of  the  indul- 
gence of  ferocious  habits  to  the  interest  of  human  beings, 
rather  than  in  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  thing  itself. 
What  it  would  be  the  duty  of  a  human  being,  possessed 
of  the  requisite  physical  strength,  to  prevent  by  force,  if 
attempted  in  his  presence,  it  cannot  be  less  incumbent 
on  society  generally  to  repress.  The  existing  laws  of 
England  are  chiefly  defective  in  the  trifling — often  al- 
most nominal — maximum  to  which  the  penalty,  even  in 
the  worst  cases,  is  limited."  ^ 

Let  us  turn  now  to  the  practical  politics  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  consider  in  what  instances  we  may  suitably  ap- 
peal for  further  legislative  recognition  of  the  rights  of 
animals.  Admitting  that  education  must  always  precede 
law,  and  that  we  can  only  make  penal  those  offences 
^  "  Principles  of  Political  Economy." 


LINES    OF  REFORM,  lOI 

which  are  already  condemned  by  the  better  feeUng  of  the 
nation,  we  are  still  bound  to  point  out  that  in  several 
particulars  there  is  now  urgent  need  of  bringing  the  lag- 
ging influence  of  the  legislature  into  a  line  with  a  rapid- 
ly advancing  pubhc  opinion.  It  is  possible  that,  in  some 
cases,  certain  prevalent  cruelties  might  be  suppressed, 
without  any  change  in  the  law,  by  magistrates  and  juries 
giving  a  wider  interpretation  to  the  rather  vague  word- 
ing of  the  existing  statutes.  If  this  cannot  be  done,  the 
statutes  themselves  should  be  amended,  so  as  to  meet 
the  larger  requirements  of  a  more  enlightened  national 
conscience. 

There  are  not  a  few  cruel  practices,  common  in  Eng- 
land at  the  present  day,  which  are  every  whit  as  strongly 
condemned  by  thinking  people  as  were  bull-baiting  and 
cock-fighting  at  the  time  of  their  prohibition  in  1835. 
Foremost  among  these  practices,  because  supported  by 
the  sanction  of  the  State  and  carried  on  in  the  Queen's 
name,  is  the  institution  of  the  Royal  Buckhounds./  It 
does  not  seem  too  much  to  demand  that  all  worrying  of 
tame  or  captured  animals — whether  of  the  stag  turned 
out  from  a  cart,  the  rabbit  from  a  sack,  or  the  pigeon 
from  a  cage — should  be  interpreted  as  equivalent  to 
''  baiting,"  and  so  brought  within  the  scope  of  the  Acts 
of  1835  and  1849.  There  is  also  need  of  extending  to 
''  vermin  "  some  sort  of  protection  against  the  wholly 
unnecessary  tortures  that  are  recklessly  inflicted  on  them, 
and  of  abolishing  or  restricting  the  common  use  of  the 
barbarous  steel-trap. 

1  See  p.  58. 


W 


102  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

The  exposure  lately  made  ^  of  the  horrors  of  Atlantic 
cattle-ships — scenes  that  reproduce  almost  exactly  the 
worst  atrocities  of  the  slaver — is  likely  to  lead  to  some 
welcome  improvement  in  the  details  of  that  lugubrious 
traffic.  But  this  will  not  be  sufficient  in  itself;  for  the 
cruelties  committed  in  the  slaughter,  no  less  than  in  the 
transit,  of  "  live-stock  "  call  imperatively  for  some  pub- 
lic cognizance  and  reprobation.  The  discontinuance, 
in  our  crowded  districts,  of  all  private  slaughter-houses, 
and  the  substitution  of  public  abattoirs  under  efficient 
municipal  control,  would  do  something  to  mitigate  tlie 
worst  features  of  the  evil,  and  this  reform  should  at  once 
,  be  pressed  on  the  attention  of  local  legislative  bodies. 
Lastly,  in  this  short  list  of  urgent  temporary  measures, 
stands  the  question  of  vivisection  ;  and  here  there  can 
be  no  relaxation  of  the  demand  for  total  and  unqualified 
|J»K    prohibition. 

But,  when  all  is  said,  it  remains  true  that  legislation, 
important  though  it  is,  must  ever  be  secondary  to  the 
awakening  of  the  humane  instincts ;  even  education  it- 
self can  only  appeal  with  success  to  those  whose  minds 
are  in  some  degree  naturally  predisposed  to  receive  it. 
I  have  spoken  of  the  desirability  of  an  intellectual  cru- 
sade against  the  main  causes  of  the  unjust  treatment  of 
animals ;  but  I  would  not  be  understood  to  believe,  as 
some  humanitarians  appear  to  do,  that  a  hardened  world 
might  be  miraculously  converted  by  the  preaching  of 
a  new  St.  Francis,  if  such  a  personality  could  be  some- 
how evolved  out  of  our  nineteenth-century  commercial- 
*  "Cattle-Ships,"  by  Samuel  Plimsoll,  1890. 


LINES   OF  REFORM.  IO3 

ism  !  ^  In  this  infinitely  complex  modern  society,  great 
wrongs  cannot  be  wholly  righted  by  simple  means,  not 
even  by  the  consuming  enthusiasm  of  the  prophet ;  since 
any  particular  form  of  injustice  is  but  part  and  parcel  of 
a  far  more  deep-lying  evil — the  selfish,  aggressive  tenden- 
cies that  are  still  so  largely  inherent  in  the  human  race. 

Only  with  the  gradual  progress  of  an  enlightened 
sense  of  equality  shall  we  remedy  these  wrongs ;  and 
the  object  of  our  crusade  should  be  not  so  much  to  con- 
vert opponents  (who,  by  the  very  disabilities  and  limi- 
tations of  their  faculties,  can  never  be  really  converted,) 
as  to  set  the  confused  problem  in  a  clear  light,  and  at 
least  discriminate  unmistakably  between  our  enemies 
and  our  allies.  In  all  social  controversies  the  issues  are 
greatly  obscured  by  the  babel  of  names  and  phrases  and 
cross-arguments  that  are  bandied  to  and  fro ;  so  that 
many  persons,  who  by  natural  sympathy  and  inclination 
are  the  friends  of  reform,  are  found  to  be  ranked  among 
its  foes ;  while  not  a  few  of  its  foes,  in  similar  uncon- 
sciousness, have  strayed  into  the  opposite  camp.  To 
state  the  issues  distinctly,  and  so  attract  and  consolidate 
a  genuine  body  of  support,  is,  perhaps,  at  the  present 
time,  the  best  service  that  humanitarians  can  render  to 
the  movement  they  wish  to  promote. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  state  emphatically  that  this 
essay  is  not  an  appeal  ad  mis  eric  oj^diam  to  those  who 
themselves  practise,  or  who  condone  in  others,  the  deed 
against  which  a  protest  is  here  raised.  It  is  not  a  plea 
for  ''mercy"  (save  the  mark  !)  to  the  ''brute  beasts  " 

^  See  article  by  Ouida,  "  Fortnightly  Review,"  April,  1892. 


I04  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

whose  sole  criminality  consists  in  not  belonging  to  the 
noble  family  of  homo  sapiens.  It  is  addressed  rather  to 
those  who  see  and  feel  that,  as  has  been  well  said,  ''  the 
great  advancement  of  the  world,  throughout  all  ages,  is 
to  be  measured  by  the  increase  of  humanity  and  the  de- 
crease of  cruelty" — that  man,  to  be  truly  man,  must 
cease  to  abnegate  his  common  fellowship  with  all  living 
nature — and  that  the  coming  realization  of  human  rights 
will  inevitably  bring  after  it  the  tardier  but  not  less  cer- 
tain realization  of  the  rights  of  the  lower  races. 


APPENDIX. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY    OF    THE    RIGHTS    OF    ANIMALS. 

In  the  following  pages  the  author  has  attempted — not 
to  give  a  complete  bibliography  of  the  doctrine  of 
Animals'  Rights,  but  merely  a  list  of  the  chief  English 
works,  touching  directly  on  that  subject,  which  have 
come  within  his  own  notice.  The  passages  quoted  from 
the  older  and  less  accessible  books  may  serve  the 
double  purpose  of  showing  the  rise  and  progress  of  the 
movement,  and  of  reinforcing  the  conclusions  arrived 
at  in  the  first  part  of  this  volume. 

The  Fable  of  the  Bees.     By  Bernard   de  Mandeville. 
1723. 

As  Mandeville,  whether  cynic  or  moralist,  has  been 
credited  by  some  opponents  of  the  rights  of  animals 
with  being  the  author  of  that  pernicious  theory,  I  quote 
a  few  sentences  from  the  most  famous  of  his  volumes : 
''  I  have  often  thought,"  he  says,  ''  if  it  was  not  for  this 
tyranny  which  custom  usurps  over  us,  that  men  of  any 
tolerable  good-nature  could  never  be  reconcil'd  to  the 
killing  of  so  many  animals  for  their  daily  food,  as  long 
as  the  bountiful  earth  so  plentifully  provides  them  with 
varieties  of  vegetable  dainties.     ...     In  such  perfect 


I06  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS. 

animals  as  sheep  and  oxen,  in  whom  the  heart,  the  brain 
and  nerves  differ  so  httle  from  ours,  and  in  whom  the 
separation  of  the  spirits  from  the  blood,  the  organs  of 
sense,  and  consequently  feeling  itself,  are  the  same  as 
they  are  in  human  creatures;  I  can't  imagine  how  a 
man  not  harden' d  in  blood  and  massacre  is  able  to  see 
a  violent  death,  and  the  pangs  of  it,  without  concern. 
In  answer  to  this,  most  people  will  think  it  sufficient  to 
say  that  all  things  being  allow 'd  to  be  made  for  the 
service  of  man,  there  can  be  no  cruelty  in  putting  creat- 
ures to  the  use  they  were  design' d  for ;  but  I  have  heard 
men  make  this  reply  while  their  nature  within  them  has 
reproach' d  them  with  the  falsehood  of  the  assertion." 

Free  Thoughts  upon  the  Brute  Creation.     By  John  Hil- 
drop,  M.A.     London,  1742. 

This  ''examination"  of  Father  Bougeant's  ''Philo- 
sophical Amusement  upon  the  Language  of  Beasts" 
(1740),  in  which  it  is  ironically  contended  that  the 
souls  of  animals  are  imprisoned  devils,  is  an  argument  in 
favour  of  animal  immortality,  in  the  form  of  two  letters 
addressed  to  a  lady.  "  Do  but  examine  your  own  com- 
prj.oionate  heart,"  says  the  author,  "and  tell  me,  do 
you  not  think  it  a  breach  of  natural  justice  wantonly  and 
without  necessity  to  torment,  much  more  to  take  away 
the  life  of  any  creature,  except  for  the  preservation  and 
happiness  of  your  own  being;  which,  in  our  present 
state  of  enmity  and  discord,  is  sometimes  unavoid- 
able ?  .  .  .  But  I  expect  you  will  tell  me,  as  many 
grave  authors  of  great  learning  and  little  understanding 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS.       10/ 

have  done  before  you,  that  there  is  not  even  the  appear- 
ance of  injustice  or  cruelty  in  this  procedure ;  that  if  the 
brutes  themselves  had  power  to  speak,  to  complain,  to 
appeal  to  a  court  of  justice,  and  plead  their  own  cause, 
they  could  have  no  just  reason  for  such  complaint. 
This  you  may  say,  but  I  know  you  too  well  to  believe 
you  think  so  ;  but  it  is  an  objection  thrown  in  your  way 
by  some  serious  writers  upon  this  subject.  They  tell 
you  that  their  existence  was  given  them  upon  this  very 
condition,  that  it  should  be  temporary  and  short,  that 
after  they  had  flutter' d,  or  crept,  or  swam,  or  walk'd 
about  their  respective  elements  for  a  little  season,  they 
should  be  swept  away  by  the  hand  of  violence,  or  the 
course  of  nature,  into  an  entire  extinction  of  being,  to 
make  room  for  their  successors  in  the  same  circle  of 
vanity  and  corruption.  But,  pray,  who  told  them  so  ? 
Where  did  they  learn  this  philosophy?  Does  either 
reason  or  revelation  give  the  least  countenance  to  such 
a  bold  assertion  ?  So  far  from  it,  that  it  seems  a  direct 
contradiction  to  both." 

A  Dissei^tation  on  the  Duty  of  Mercy  and  Sin  of  Cruelty 
to  Brute  Animals.  By  Humphry  Primatt,  D.D. 
London,  1776. 

'' However  men  may  differ,"  says  the  author  of  this 
quaint  but  excellent  book,  ''as  to  speculative  points  of 
rehgion,  justice  is  a  rule  of  universal  extent  and  invari- 
able obligation.  We  acknowledge  this  important  truth 
in  all  matters  in  which  Man  is  concerned,  but  then  we 
limit  it  to  our  own  species  only.     And  though  we  are 


I08  ANIMALS'    RTGIITS. 

able  to  trace  the  most  evident  marks  of  the  Creator's 
wisdom  and  goodness,  in  the  formation  and  appoint- 
ment of  the  various  classes  of  animals  that  are  inferior  to 
men,  yet  the  consciousness  of  our  own  dignity  and  ex- 
cellence is  apt  to  suggest  to  us  that  Man  alone  of  all  ter- 
restrial animals  is  the  only  proper  object  of  mercy  and 
compassion,  because  he  is  the  most  highly  favoured  and 
distinguished.  Misled  with  this  prejudice  in  our  own 
favour,  we  overlook  some  of  the  Brutes  as  if  they  were 
mere  excrescences  of  Nature,  beneath  our  notice  and 
infinitely  unworthy  the  care  and  cognizance  of  the 
Almighty;  and  we  consider  others  of  them  as  made 
only  for  our  service ;  and  so  long  as  we  can  apply  them 
to  our  use  we  are  careless  and  indifferent  as  to  their  hap- 
piness or  misery,  and  can  hardly  bring  ourselves  to  sup- 
pose that  there  is  any  kind  of  duty  incumbent  upon  us 
toward  them.  To  rectify  this  mistaken  notion  is  the 
design  of  this  treatise." 

With  much  force  he  applies  to  the  animal  question 
the  precept  of  doing  to  others  as  we  would  be  done  unto. 
''If,  in  brutal  shape,  we  had  been  endued  with  the 
same  degree  of  reason  and  reflection  which  we  now  en- 
joy ;  and  other  beings,  in  Jiuman  shape,  should  take 
upon  them  to  torment,  abuse,  and  barbarously  ill-treat 
us,  because  we  were  not  made  in  their  shape  ;  the  injus- 
tice and  cruelty  of  their  behaviour  to  us  would  be  self- 
evident  ;  and  we  should  naturally  infer  that,  whether 
we  walk  upon  two  legs  or  four ;  whether  our  heads 
are  prone  or  erect ;  whether  we  are  naked  or  covered 
with  hair ;    whether  we   have   tails  or    no    tails,    horn 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.       IO9 

or  no  horns,  long  ears  or  round  ears  ;  or,  whether  we 
bray  like  an  ass,  speak  like  a  man,  whistle  like  a  bird, 
or  are  mute  as  a  fish — Nature  never  intended  these  dis- 
tinctions as  foundations  for  right  of  tyranny  and  oppres- 
sion." 

He  exposes  the  fallacy  of  the  argument  drawn  from 
the  cruelty  of  animals  to  animals.  "For  us  to  infer 
that  men  may  be  cruel  to  brutes  in  general,  because 
some  brutes  are  naturally  fierce  and  bloodthirsty,  is 
tantamount  to  saying.  Cruelty  in  Britain  is  no  sin,  be- 
cause there  are  wild  tigers  in  India.  But  is  their  feroc- 
ity and  brutality  to  be  the  standard  and  pattern  of  our 
humanity  ?  And  because  tJiey  have  no  compassion,  are 
we  to  have  no  compassion  ?  Because  they  have  little  or 
no  reason,  are  we  to  have  no  reason?  Or  are  we  to 
become  as  very  brutes  as  they  ?  However,  we  need  not 
go  as  far  as  India ;  for  even  in  England  dogs  will  worry 
and  cocks  will  fight  (though  not  so  often,  if  we  did  not 
set  them  on,  and  prepare  them  for  the  battle).  Yet 
what  is  that  to  us  ?  Are  we  dogs  ?  are  we  fighting- 
cocks  ?  Are  they  to  be  our  tutors  and  instructors,  that 
we  appeal  to  them  for  arguments  to  justify  and  palliate 
our  inhumanity  ?  No.  Let  tigers  roar,  let  dogs  worry, 
and  cocks  fight  ;  but  it  is  astonishing  that  men,  who 
boast  so  much  of  the  dignity  of  their  nature,  the  supe- 
rior excellence  of  their  understanding,  and  the  immor- 
tality of  their  souls  (which,  by-the-by,  is  a  circumstance 
which  cruel  men  above  all  others  have  the  least  reason 
to  glory  in),  should  disgrace  their  dignity  and  under- 
standing by  recurring  to  the  practice  of  the  low  and 


no  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

confessedly  irrational  part  of  the  creation  in  vindication 
of  their  own  conduct. ' ' 

The  bulk  of  the  book  is  occupied  with  references  to 
scriptural  texts  on  the  duty  of  humaneness.  The  con- 
cluding moral  is  as  follows  :  '  ^  See  that  no  brute  of 
any  kind,  whether  intrusted  to  thy  care,  or  coming  in 
thy  way,  suffer  through  thy  neglect  or  abuse.  Let  no 
views  of  profit,  no  compliance  with  custom,  and  no  fear 
of  the  ridicule  of  the  world,  ever  tempt  thee  to  the  least 
act  of  cruelty  or  injustice  to  any  creature  whatsoever. 
But  let  this  be  your  invariable  rule,  everywhere,  and  at 
all  times,  to  do  tmto  others  as,  in  their  condition,  yotc 
would  be  done  unto, ' ' 

Disquisitio7is  on  Sevei^al  Subjects.     By  Soame  Jenyns. 

1782. 

Soame  Jenyns  (i  704-1 787)  was  an  essayist,  poet,  and 
politician,  whose  writings,  though  now  nearly  forgotten, 
were  highly  estimated  by  his  own  generation.  Chapter 
II.  of  his  ''  Disquisitions  "  treats  of  ''  Cruelty  to  Infe- 
rior Animals,"  and  is  one  of  the  best  of  the  early  trea- 
tises on  the  subject. 

*'  No  small  part  of  mankind,"  he  says,  ''  derive  their 
chief  amusements  from  the  death  and  sufferings  of  in- 
ferior animals  ;  a  much  greater  consider  them  only  as 
engines  of  wood  or  iron,  useful  in  their  several  occupa- 
tions. The  carman  drives  his  horse,  and  the  carpenter 
his  nail,  by  repeated  blows ;  and  so  long  as  these  pro- 
duce the  desired  effect,  and  they  both  go,  they  neither 
reflect  nor  care  whether  either  of  them  have  any  sense 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.       Ill 

of  feeling.  The  butcher  knocks  down  the  stately  ox 
with  no  more  compassion  than  the  blacksmith  hammers 
a  horseshoe,  and  plunges  his  knife  into  the  throat  of 
the  innocent  iamb  with  as  little  reluctance  as  the  tailor 
sticks  his  needle  into  the  collar  of  a  coat. 

''■  If  there  are  some  few  who,  formed  in  a  softer 
mould,  view  with  pity  the  sufferings  of  these  defenceless 
creatures,  there  is  scarce  one  who  entertains  the  least 
idea  that  justice  or  gratitude  can  be  due  to  their  merits 
or  their  services.  The  social  and  friendly  dog  is  hanged 
without  remorse,  if  by  barking  in  defence  of  his  master's 
person  and  property,  he  happens  unknowingly  to  disturb 
his  rest ;  the  generous  horse,  who  has  carried  his  un- 
grateful master  for  many  years  with  ease  and  safety, 
worn  out  with  age  and  infirmities  contracted  in  his  ser- 
vice, is  by  him  condemned  to  end  his  miserable  days  in 
a  dust-cart.  .  .  .  These,  with  innumerable  other 
acts  of  cruelty,  injustice,  and  ingratitude,  are  every 
day  committed,  not  only  with  impunity,  but  without 
censure,  and  even  without  observation,  but  we  may  be 
assured  that  they  cannot  finally  pass  away  unnoticed 
and  unretaliated. " 

Introduction  to  the  Principles  of  Morals  aitd  Legislation. 
By  Jeremy  Bentham.  London,  1789  (printed 
1780). 

The  following  is  the  most  notable  passage  in  Ben- 
tham's  works  on  the  subject  of  animals'  rights.  It  oc- 
curs in  the  chapter  on  "  Limits  between  Private  Ethics 
and  the  Art   of  Legislation,"  in  which   he  shows  that 


112  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS. 

ethics  concern  a  man's    own  conduct,   legislation  his 
treatment  of  others. 

''What  other  agents,  then,  [/.<?.,  apart  from  oneself] 
are  there,  which,  at  the  same  time  that  they  are  under 
the  influence  of  man's  direction,  are  susceptible  of  hap- 
piness ?     They  are  of  two  sorts  : 

''  I.   Other  human  beings,  who  are  ^tyX^d.  persons. 

*'  II.  Other  animals,  which  on  account  of  their  in- 
terests having  been  neglected  by  the  insensibility  of  the 
ancient  jurists,  stand  degraded  into  the  class  oi  things.  ^^ 

To  the  above  is  subjoined  in  a  foot-note :  "Under 
the  Gentoo  and  Mahometan  religions,  the  interests  of 
the  rest  of  the  animal  creation  seem  to  have  met  with 
some  attention.  Why  have  they  not,  universally,  with 
as  much  as  those  of  human  creatures,  allowance  made 
for  the  difference  in  point  of  sensibility  ?  Because  the 
Laws  that  are,  have  been  the  work  of  mutual  fear — a 
sentiment  which  the  less  rational  animals  have  not  had 
the  same  means  as  man  has  of  turning  to  account.  Why 
ought  they  not?  No  reason  can  be  given.  If  the  being 
eaten  were  all,  there  is  a  very  good  reason  why  we  should 
be  suffered  to  eat  such  of  them  as  we  like  to  eat :  we  are 
the  better  for  it,  and  they  are  never  the  worse. 
If  the  being  killed  were  all,  there  is  very  good  reason 
why  we  should  be  suffered  to  kill  such  as  molest  us : 
we  should  be  the  worse  for  their  living,  and  they  are 
never  the  worse  of  being  dead.  But  is  there  any  reason 
why  we  should  be  suffered  to  torment  them  ?  Not  any 
that  I  can  see.  Are  there  any  why  we  should  not  be 
suffered  to  torment  them  ?     Yes,  several.     The  day  has 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.       II3 

been,  I  grieve  to  say  in  many  places  it  is  not  yet  past, 
in  which  the  greater  part  of  the  species,  under  the  de- 
nomination of  slaves.,  have  been  treated  by  the  law 
exactly  upon  the  same  footing  as,  in  England,  for  exam- 
ple, the  inferior  races  of  animals  are  still.  The  day  may 
come  when  the  rest  of  the  animal  creation  may  acquire 
those  rights  which  never  could  have  been  withholden 
from  them  but  by  the  hand  of  tyranny.  The  French 
have  already  discovered  that  the  blackness  of  the  skin  is 
no  reason  why  a  human  being  should  be  abandoned, 
without  redress,  to  the  caprice  of  a  tormentor.  It  may 
come  one  day  to  be  recognized  that  the  number  of  the 
legs,  the  villosity  of  the  skin,  or  the  termination  of  the 
OS  sacrum,  are  reasons  equally  insufficient  for  abandon- 
ing a  sensitive  being  to  the  same  fate.  What  else  is  it 
should  trace  the  insuperable  line  ?  Is  it  the  faculty  of 
reason,  or,  perhaps,  the  faculty  of  discourse?  But  a 
full-grown  horse  or  dog  fs,  beyond  comparison,  a  more 
rational,  as  well  as  more  conversable  animal  than  an 
infant  of  a  day,  a  week,  or  even  a  month  old.  But 
suppose  the  case  were  otherwise,  what  would  it  avail  ? 
The  question  is  not.  Can  they  reason  ?  nor,  Can  they 
talk  ?  but.  Can  they  suffer  ?  ' ' 

The  Cry  of  Nature,  or  An  Appeal  to  Mercy  and  Justice 
on  behalf  of  the  Persecuted  Animals.  By  John  Os- 
wald.     1791. 

John  Oswald  (i 730-1 793)  was  a  native  of  Edinburgh, 
who  served  as  an  officer  in  India,  and  became  intimately 
acquainted  with  Hindoo  customs.     He  was  a  vegetarian, 
8 


114  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

and  the  main  object  of  his  ''  Cry  of  Nature  "  is  to  advo- 
cate the  discontinuance  of  flesh-eating.  Much  of  what 
he  writes  on  the  animal  question  is  eloquent  and  forci- 
ble, though  the  book  is  disfigured  by  an  ornate  and 
affected  style.     Here  is  an  example  : 

"Sovereign  despot  of  the  world,  lord  of  the  life  and 
death  of  every  creature, — man,  with  the  slaves  of  his 
tyranny,  disclaims  the  ties  of  kindred.  Howe'er  attuned 
to  the  feelings  of  the  human  heart,  their  affections  are 
the  mere  result  of  mechanic  impulse;  howe'er  they  may 
verge  on  human  wisdom,  their  actions  have  only  the 
semblance  of  sagacity  :  enlightened  by  the  ray  of  reason, 
man  is  immensely  removed  from  animals  who  have  only 
instinct  for  their  guide,  and  born  to  immortality,  he 
scorns  with  the  brutes  that  perish  a  social  bond  to  ac- 
knowledge. Such  are  the  unfeeling  dogmas,  which, 
early  instilled  into  the  mind,  induce  a  callous  insensi- 
bility, foreign  to  the  native  texture  of  the  heart ;  such 
the  cruel  speculations  which  prepare  us  for  the  practice 
of  that  remorseless  tyranny,  and  which  palliate  the  foul 
oppression  that,  over  inferior  but  fellow  creatures,  we 
delight  to  exercise." 

A  Vindication  of  the  Rights  of  Brutes.     London,  1792. 

This  little  volume  is  attributed  to  Thomas  Taylor,  the 
Platonist,  the  translator  of  Porphyry's  famous  work  on 
''Abstinence  from  the  flesh  of  Living  Beings."  It  was, 
as  already  stated,  designed  to  throw  ridicule  on  the 
theory  of  human  rights. 

In  Chapter  I.  he  ironically  lays  down  the  proposition 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS,      II5 

''that  God  hath  made  all  things  equal."  ''It  appears 
at  first  sight,"  he  says,  "  somewhat  singular  that  a  moral 
truth  of  the  highest  importance  and  most  illustrious  evi- 
dence, should  have  been  utterly  unknown  to  the  ancients, 
and  not  yet  fully  perceived,  and  universally  acknowl- 
edged, even  in  such  an  enlightened  age  as  the  present. 
The  truth  I  allude  to  is  the  equality  of  all  things,  with  re- 
spect to  their  int7Hnsic  a7id  real  dignity  and  worth.  .  .  . 
I  perceive,  however,  with  no  small  delight  that  this  sub- 
lime doctrine  is  daily  gaining  ground  among  the  think- 
ing part  of  mankind.  Mr.  Paine  has  already  convinced 
thousands  of  the  equality  of  men  to  each  other ;  and 
Mrs.  Woolstoncraft  has  indisputably  proved  that  women 
are  in  every  respect  naturally  equal  to  men,  not  only  in 
mental  abilities,  but  likewise  in  bodily  strength,  bold- 
ness, and  the  like." 

A  Philosophical  Treatise  on  Horses,  and  on  the  Moi'al 
Duties  of  Man  towards  the  B?'ute  Creation.  By 
John  Lawrence.  Two  vols.  London,  1796- 
1798.  Vol.  I.  chapter  iii.  deals  with  "The 
Rights  of  Beasts  ;  "  Vol.  IL  chapter  i.  with  "  The 
Philosophy  of  Sports. ' ' 

John  Lawrence,  described  as  "  a  literary  farmer,"  was 
an  authority  on  agriculture  and  the  management  of  do- 
mestic animals.  He  was  a  humanitarian,  and  was  con- 
sulted by  Richard  Martin,  M.P.,  on  the  details  of  the 
Ill-Treatment  of  Cattle  Bill,  which  became  law  in  1822. 
Humanity  is -the  most  conspicuous  feature  of  Lawrence's 
writings.      "  From  my  first  contributions  to  the  period- 


Il6  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

ical  press,"  so  he  subsequently  wrote,  ''  I  have  embraced 
as  many  opportunities  as  were  in  my  power  of  introduc- 
ing the  subject,  and  have  never  written  any  book  on  the 
care  and  management  of  animals  wherein  that  important 
branch  has  been  neglected. ' ' 

''  It  has  ever  been,"  says  Lawrence,  ''  and  still  is,  the 
invariable  custom  of  the  bulk  of  mankind,  not  even  ex- 
cej^ting  legislators,  both  religious  and  civil,  to  look  upon 
brutes  as  mere  machines  ;  animated,  yet  without  souls  ; 
endowed  with  feelings,  but  utterly  devoid  of  rights  ;  and 
placed  without  the  pale  of  justice.  From  these  defects, 
and  from  the  idea,  ill  understood,  of  their  being  created 
merely  for  the  use  and  purposes  of  man,  have  the  feelings 
of  beasts,  their  lawful,  that  is,  natural  interests  and  wel- 
fare, been  sacrificed  to  his  convenience,  his  cruelty,  or 
his  caprice. 

^'  It  is  but  too  easy  to  demonstrate,  by  a  series  of  mel- 
ancholy facts,  that  brute  creatures  are  not  yet,  in  the 
contemplation  of  any  people,  reckoned  within  the  scheme 
of  general  justice ;  that  they  reap  only  the  benefit  of  a 
partial  and  inefficacious  kind  of  compassion.  Yet  it  is 
easy  to  prove,  by  analogies  drawn  from  our  own,  that 
they  also  have  souls  ;  and  perfectly  consistent  with  rea- 
son to  infer  a  gradation  of  intellect,  from  the  spark  which 
animates  the  most  minute  mortal  exiguity,  up  to  the  sum 
of  infinite  intelligence,  or  the  general  soul  of  the  universe. 
By  a  recurrence  to  principles,  it  will  appear  that  life, 
intelligence,  and  feeling,  necessarily  imply  rights.  Jus- 
tice, in  which  are  included  mercy,  or  compassion,  obvi- 
ously refers  to  sense  and  feeling.     Now  is  the  essence  of 


BIBLIOGRAPHY   OF  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS.       llj 

justice  divisible  ?  Can  there  be  one  kind  of  justice  for 
men,  and  another  for  brutes  ?  Or  is  feehng  in  them  a 
different  tiling  to  what  it  is  in  ourselves  ?  Is  not  a  beast 
produced  by  the  same  rule,  and  in  the  same  order  of 
generation  with  ourselves  ?  Is  not  his  body  nourished 
by  the  same  food,  hurt  by  the  same  injuries  ;  his  mind 
actuated  by  the  same  passions  and  affections  which  ani- 
mate the  human  breast; 'and  does  not  he  also,  at  last, 
mingle  his  dust  with  ours,  and  in  like  manner  surrender 
up  the  vital  s]3ark  to  the  aggregate,  or  fountain  of  intel- 
ligence? Is  this  spark,'  or  soul,  to  perish  because  it 
chanced  to  belong  to  a  beast  ?  Is  it  to  become  annihi- 
late ?  Tell  me,  learned  philosophers,  how  that  may  pos- 
sibly happen." 

On  the  Conditct  of  Man  to  Inferior  Aniinals.     By  George 
Nicholson.     Manchester,  1797. 

The  author  of  this  work  was  a  well-known  Bradford 
printer  (1760-1825),  one  of  the  pioneers  of  the  cheap 
literature  of  the  present  day.  In  1801  he  published  an 
enlarged  edition,  under  the  title  of  "  The  Primeval  Diet 
of  Man  ;  Arguments  in  favour  of  Vegetable  food  ;  On 
Man's  Conduct  to  Animals,  etc.,  etc."  The  book  is  in 
great  measure  a  compilation  of  passages  illustrative  of 
man's  cruelty  to  the  lower  kinds. 

'^  In  our  conduct  to  animals,"  he  writes  in  the  ^'  con- 
cluding reflections,"  ''one  plain  rule  may  determine 
what  form  it  ought  to  take,  and  prove  an  effectual  guard 
against  an  improper  treatment  of  them  ; — a  rule  univer- 
sally admitted  as  the  foundation  of  moral  rectitude  ;  treat 


Il8  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS. 

the  ani?iial  ivhich  is  in  your  power ^  in  such  a  ma?iner  as 
you  would  willingly  be  treated,  were  you  such  an  animal. 
From  men  of  imperious  temper,  inflated  by  wealth,  de- 
voted to  sensual  gratifications,  and  influenced  by  fashion, 
no  share  of  humanity  can  be  expected.  He  who  is  capa- 
ble of  enslaving  his  own  species,  of  treating  the  inferior 
ranks  of  them  with  contempt  or  austerity,  and  who  can 
be  unmoved  by  their  misfortunes,  is  a  man  formed  of  the 
materials  of  a  cannibal,  and  will  exercise  his  temper  on 
the  lower  orders  of  animal  life  with  inflexible  obduracy. 
No  arguments  of  truth  or  justice  can  affect  such  a  hard- 
ened mind.  Even  persons  of  more  gentle  natures,  hav- 
ing long  been  initiated  in  corrupt  habits,  do  not  readily 
listen  to  sensations  of  feeling;  or,  if  the  principles  of 
justice,  mercy,  and  tenderness  be  admitted,  such  princi- 
ples are  merely  theoretical,  and  influence  not  their  con- 
duct. 

^^  But  the  truly  independent  and  sympathizing  mind 
will  ever  derive  satisfaction  from  the  prospect  of  well- 
being,  and  will  not  incline  to  stifle  convictions  arising 
from  the  genuine  evidences  of  truth.  Without  fear  or 
hesitation  he  will  become  proof  against  the  sneers  of  un- 
feeling men,  exhibit'  an  uniform  example  of  humanity, 
and  impress  on  others  additional  arguments  and  mo- 
tives. ...  In  the  present  diseased  and  ruined  state 
of  society,  the  prospect  is  far  distant  when  the  System  of 
Benevolence  is  likely  to  be  generally  adopted.  The  hope 
of  reformation  then  arises  from  the  intelligent,  less  cor- 
rupted, and  younger  part  of  mankind ;  but  the  numbers 
are  comparatively  few  who  think  for  themselves,  and 


BIBLIOGRAPHY   OF  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS.       1 19 

who  are  not  infected  by  long-established  and  pernicious 
customs.  It  is  a  pleasure  to  foster  the  idea  of  a  golden  age 
regained,  when  the  thought  of  the  butcher  shall  not  min- 
gle with  the  sight  of  our  flocks  and  herds.  May  the  be- 
nevolent system  spread  to  every  corner  of  the  globe ! 
May  we  learn  to  recognize  and  to  respect,  in  other  ani- 
mals, the  feelings  which  vibrate  in  ourselves  !  ' ' 

A71  Essay  on  Himianiiy  to  Animals.  By  Thomas  Young, 
Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  London, 
1798. 

**In  offering  to  the  public  a  book  on  Humanity  to 
Animals,"  writes  the  author  of  this  little  volume,  "  I  am 
sensible  that  I  lay  myself  open  to  no  small  portion  of 
ridicule ;  independent  of  all  the  common  dangers  to 
which  authors  are  exposed.  To  many,  no  doubt,  the 
subject  which  I  have  chosen  will  appear  whimsical  and 
uninteresting,  and  the  particulars  into  which  it  is  about 
to  lead  me  ludicrous  and  mean.  From  the  reflecting, 
however,  and  the  humane  I  shall  hope  for  a  different 
opinion ;  and  of  these  the  number,  I  trust,  among  my 
countrymen  is  by  no  means  inconsiderable.  The  exer- 
tions which  have  been  made  to  diminish  the  sufferings 
of  the  prisoners,  and  to  better  the  condition  of  the  poor, 
the  flourishing  state  of  charitable  institutions ;  the  inter- 
est excited  in  the  nation  by  the  struggles  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  slave-trade ;  the  growing  detestation  of  re- 
ligious persecution — all  these  and  other  circumstances 
induce  me  to  believe  that  we  have  not  been  retrograding 
in  Humanity  during  the  present  century  :  and  I  feel  the 


I20  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

more  inclination  and  encouragement  to  execute  the  task 
to  which  I  have  set  myself,  inasmuch  as  humanity  to  ani- 
mals presents  itself  to  my  mind  as  having  an  important 
connection  with  humanity  towards  mankind." 

The  author  bases  his  plea  for  animals'  rights  on  the 
light  of  nature.  '^  Animals  are  endued  with  a  capability 
of  perceiving  pleasure  and  pain ;  and  from  the  abun- 
dant provision  which  we  perceive  in  the  world  for  the 
gratification  of  their  several  senses,  we  must  conclude 
that  the  Creator  wills  the  happiness  of  these  his  creat- 
ures, and  consequently  that  humanity  towards  them  is 
agreeable  to  him,  and  cruelty  the  contrary.  This,  I 
take  it,  is  the  foundation  of  the  rights  of  animals,  as  far 
as  they  can  be  traced  independently  of  scripture  ;  and 
is,  even  by  itself,  decisive  on  the  subject,  being  the 
same  sort  of  argument  as  that  on  which  moralists  found 
the  Rights  of  Mankind,  as  deduced  from  the  Light  of 
Nature. ' ' 

The  book  opens  with  a  general  essay  on  humanity  and 
cruelty,  and  contains  chapters  on  sport,  the  treatment 
of  horses,  cruelties  connected  with  the  table,  etc.,  etc. 
It  is  quoted  approvingly  by  Thomas  Forster  and  later 
advocates  of  humanity. 

Moral  Inquiries  on  the  Situation  of  Man  and  of  Brutes. 
By  Lewis  Gompertz.      London,  1824. 

Lewis  Gompertz  was  an  ardent  humanitarian  and  a 
mechanical  inventor  of  no  little  ingenuity,  many  of  his 
inventions  being  designed  to  save  animal  suffering.  He 
died  in  1861.      From  1826  to  1832  he  was  secretary  of 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS.       121 

the  Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  ;  but  being 
then  compelled  to  withdraw,  owing  to  religions  differ- 
ences, he  founded  the  Animals'  Friend  Society,  and  a 
journal  of  the  same  name. 

''It  needs  but  little  power  of  rhetoric,"  he  says  in 
his  opening  chapter,  "  to  prove  that  it  is  highly  culpable 
in  man  to  torture  the  brute  creation  for  amusement ; 
but,  strange  it  would  seem !  this  self-evident  principle 
is  not  only  openly  violated  by  men  whose  rank  in  life 
has  denied  them  the  benefit  of  good  education  or  leisure 
for  reflection,  but  also  by  those  with  whom  neither  ex- 
pense nor  trouble  has  been  spared  towards  the  formation 
of  their  intellectual  powers,  even  in  their  most  abstracted 
recesses,  and  who  in  other  respects  delight  in  the  appli- 
cation of  their  abilities  towards  everything  that  is  good 
and  meritorious.  It  is  to  be  lamented  that  even  philos- 
ophers frequently  forget  themselves  on  this  subject,  and 
relate,  with  the  greatest  indifference,  the  numerous 
barbarous-  and  merciless  experiments  they  have  per- 
formed on  the  suffering  and  innocent  brutes,  even  on 
those  who  show  affection  for  them  ;  and  then  coldly 
make  their  observations  and  calculations  on  every 
different  form  in  which  the  agony  produced  by  them 
manifests  itself.  But  this  they  do  for  the  advancement 
of  science  !  and  expect  much  praise  for  their  meritori- 
ous exertions  ;  forgetting  that  science  should  be  sub- 
servient to  the  welfare  of  man  and  other  animals,  and 
ought  not  to  be  pursued  merely  through  emulation,  nor 
even  for  the  sensual  gratification  the  mind  derives  from 
them,  at  the  expense  of  justice,  the  destruction  of  the 


122  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS. 

happiness  of  others,  and  the  production  of  their  misery— 
as  pleasure  and  pain  are  the  only  things  of  importance. 
Forbid  it  that  we  should  give  assent  to  such 
tenets  as  these,  and  that  we  should  suffer  for  one  moment 
our  reason  to  be  veiled  by  such  delusions  !  But,  on  the 
contrary,  let  us  hold  fast  every  idea,  and  cherish  every 
glimmering  of  such  kind  of  knowledge  as  that  which 
shall  enable  us  to  distinguish  between  right  and  wrong, 
what  is  due  to  one  individual,  what  to  another. ' ' 

A  later  volume,  '•'■  Fragments  in  Defence  of  Animals," 
1852,  is  a  collection  of  articles  contributed  by  the  same 
author  to  the  "  Animals'  Friend." 

Philozoia,  or  Moral  Reflections  on  the  actual  condition  of 
the  Animal  Ki7igdoni,  and  the  means  of  improving 
the  same.     By  T.  Forster.     Brussels,  1839. 

The  author  of  this  excellent  treatise,  which  is  ad- 
dressed to  Lewis  Gompertz,  was  a  distinguished  nat- 
uralist and  astronomer  who  had  taken  an  active  part 
in  the  founding  of  the  Animals'  Friend  Society.  He 
was  born  in  1789,  and  died  at  Brussels  in  i860,  having 
lived  abroad  during  the  latter  part  of  his  life.  A 
section  of  his  book  is  devoted  to  the  '^  Condition  of 
Animals  on  the  Continent." 

^'One  of  the  surest  means,"  he  says,  ^'of  bettering 
the  condition  of  animals  will  be  to  improve  the  character 
of  man,  by  giving  to  children  a  humane  rational  edu- 
cation, and,  above  all,  setting  before  them  examples  of 
kindness.  Hitherto  nothing  has  been  so  much  neglected 
as  this  duty,  and  the  evil  effects  of  this  neglect  have 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.       123 

been  generally  visible  in  the  character  of  the  people. 
At  present  it  is  better  understood  ;  but  a  great  deal 
remains  to  be  done,  and  as  the  education  of  children 
will  not  be  thoroughly  reformed  till  their  instructors 
are  first  set  to  rights,  I  should  propose  to  your  society  to 
procure  the  delivery  of  lectures  on  the  subject  at  the 
various  mechanics'  institutes  in  England." 

Of  sport,  he  says:  ''You  will  do  well  to  reflect  on 
this,  and  to  inquire  whether  the  just  suppression  of  bull- 
baiting,  cock-fighting,  and  other  such  vulgar  and  vicious 
pastimes,  should  not,  as  the  age  becomes  more  and 
more  civilized,  be  followed  by  the  abolition  of  fox-hunt- 
ing, and  all  sporting  not  immediately  directed  to  the 
object  of  obtaining  game  for  food  by  the  most  easy  and 
expeditious  means. ' ' 

On  the  subject  of  ' '  the  Cruelty  connected  with  the 
Culinary  Art, ' '  he  has  also  some  wise  remarks  :  ' '  Some 
persons  in  Europe  carry  their  notions  about  cruelty  to 
animals  so  far  as  not  to  allow  themselves  to  eat  animal 
food.  Many  very  intelligent  men  have,  at  different 
times  of  their  lives,  abstained  wholly  from  flesh  ;  and 
this,  too,  with  very  considerable  advantage  to  their 
health.  .  .  .  All  these  facts,  taken  collectively, 
point  to  a  period  in  the  progress  of  civilization  when 
men  will  cease  to  slay  their  fellow -mortals  in  the  animal 
world  for  food.  .  .  .  The  return  of  this  paradis- 
ical state  may  be  rather  remote ;  but  in  the  meantime 
we  ought  to  make  the  experiment,  and  set  an  example 
of  humanity  by  abstaining,  if  not  from  all,  at  least  from 
those   articles    of    cookery  with  which  any    particular 


124  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

cruelty  may  be  connected,  such  as  veal,  when  the  calves 
are  killed  in  the  ordinary  way. ' ' 

Equally  noteworthy  are  the  chapters  on  ''  Cruelty  in 
Surgical  Experiments, ' '  and  ' '  Animals  considered  as 
our  Fellow  Creatures. ' ' 

The  Obligation  and  Extent  of  Humanity  to  Brutes,  prin- 
cipally considered  with  reference  to  Domesticated 
Animals.     By  W.  Youatt.     London,  1839. 

William  Youatt  (i 777-1847),  Professor  in  the  Royal 
Veterinary  College,  and  author  of  many  standard  works 
on  veterinary  subjects,  was  a  member  of  the  Society  for 
the  Prevention  of  Cruelty. 

"  The  claims  of  humanity,"  he  says  in  his  introduc- 
tion, '' however  they  may  be  neglected  or  outraged  in 
a  variety  of  respects,  are  recognized  by  every  ethical 
writer.  They  are  truly  founded  on  reason  and  on  script- 
ure, and  in  fact  are  indelibly  engraven  on  the  human 
heart. 

''  But  to  what  degree  are  they  recognized  and  obeyed  ? 
To  what  extent  are  they  inculcated,  not  only  in  many 
excellent  treatises  on  moral  philosophy,  but  by  the  great 
majority  of  the  expounders  of  the  scriptures  ?  We 
answer  with  shame,  and  with  an  astonishment  that  in- 
creases upon  us  in  proportion  as  we  think  of  the  sub- 
ject,— the  duties  of  humanity  are  represented  as  extend- 
ing to  our  fellow-men,  to  the  victims  of  oppression  or 
misfortune,  the  deaf  and  the  dumb,  the  blind,  the  slave, 
the  beggared  prodigal,  and  even  the  convicted  felon — 
all  these  receive  more  or  less  sympathy  ;   but,  with  ex- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS.       1 25 

ceptions,  few  and  far  between,  not  a  writer  pleads  for 
the  innocent  and  serviceable  creatures — brutes  as  they 
are  termed — that  minister  to  our  wants,  natural  or  arti- 
ficial. 

''  Nevertheless,  the  claims  of  the  lower  animals  to 
humane  treatment,  or  at  least  to  exemption  from  abuse, 
are  as  good  as  any  that  man  can  urge  upon  man.  Al- 
though less  intelligent,  and  not  immortal,  they  are  sus- 
ceptible of  pain  :  but  because  they  cannot  remonstrate, 
nor  associate  with  their  fellows  in  defence  of  their  rights, 
our  best  theologians  and  philosophers  have  not  conde- 
scended to  plead  their  cause,  nor  even  to  make  mention 
of  them  ;  although,  as  just  asserted,  they  have  as  much 
right  to  protection  from  ill-usage  as  the  best  of  their 
masters  have. 

''  Nay,  the  matter  has  been  carried  further  than  this. 
At  no  very  distant  period,  the  right  of  wantonly  tortur- 
ing the  inferior  animals,  as  caprice  or  passion  dictated, 
was.unblushingly  claimed  ;  and  it  was  asserted  that  the 
prevention  of  this  was  an  interference  with  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  man  !  Strange  that  at  the  beginning  of 
the  nineteenth  century  this  should  have  been  the  avowed 
opinion  of  some  of  the  British  legislators ;  and  that  the 
advocate  of  the  claims  of  the  brute  should  have  been 
regarded  as  a  fool  or  a  madman,  or  a  compound  of 
both." 

The  book  contains  chapters  on  the  usefulness  and 
good  qualities  of  the  inferior  animals,  the  application  of 
the  principle  of  humanity,  the  dissection  of  living  ani- 
mals, the  study  of  natural  history,  etc. 


126  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS. 

A  Few  Notes  on  Cruelty  to  Animals.     By  Ralph  Fletch- 
er.    London,  1846. 

This  treatise,  by  a  medical  man,  President  of  the 
Gloucester  S.  P.  C.  A.,  deals  with  various  forms  of 
cruelty  to  the  domestic  animals.  I  quote  a  passage 
from  the  Introductory  Note:  — 

''  The  quantity  and  variety  of  suffering  endured  by 
the  lower  creation  of  animals  when  domesticated  by 
man  have  struck  the  author  with  awful  force,  but  more 
especially  since  his  connection  with  a  Society  for  their 
alleviation  :  a  mingled  feeling  of  pity,  horror,  and  anx- 
iety is  left  on  the  mind  at  the  helpless  and  certain  fate 
of  such  a  vast  crowd  of  innocent  beings.  .  .  .  There 
is  a  moral  as  well  as  a  physical  character  to  all  animal 
life,  however  humble  it  may  be, — enveloped  indeed  in 
obscurity,  and  with  a  mysterious  solemnity  which  must 
ever  belong  to  the  secrets  of  the  Eternal.  Let  us  then 
approach  with  caution  the  unknown  character  of  the 
brute,  as  being  an  emanation  from  Himself;  and  treat 
with  tenderness  and  respect  the  helpless  creatures  de- 
rived from  such  a  source. 

'*  Let  us  not,  therefore,  enter  into  the  needless  ques- 
tion whether  animals  have  souls.  We  behold  the  mis- 
eries of  the  poor  dumb  creature,  we  feel  that  we  have 
free-will  sufficient,  and  the  means,  to  lighten  his  bur- 
dens ;  let  us  therefore  commence  with  energy  this  really 
benevolent  purpose,  rather  than  assume  theories  of  his 
happiness  which  are  but  apologies  for  our  want  of  feel- 
ing, our  avarice,  or  our  indolence." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS.       12/ 

Some  Talk  about  Animals  and  their  Masters.     By  Sir 
Arthur  Helps.     London,  1873. 

This  pleasant  and  popular  little  book  contains  many- 
good  remarks  about  animals.  But  there  is  no  attempt 
in  it  to  advance  any  distinct  or  consistent  view  of  the 
question. 

Mail  and  Beast,  here  and  hereafter.     By  the  Rev.  J.  G. 
Wood.     London,  1874. 

This  is  a  plea  for  animal  immortality,  by  a  well-known 
naturalist.  His  plan  is  threefold.  First,  to  show  that 
the  Bible  does  not  deny  a  future  life  to  animals.  Sec- 
ondly, to  prove  by  anecdotes,  ''that  the  lower  animals 
share  with  man  the  attributes  of  Reason,  Language, 
Memory,  a  sense  of  moral  responsibility,  Unselfishness, 
and  Love,  all  of  which  belong  to  the  spirit  and  not  to 
the  body."  Thirdly,  to  conclude  that,  as  man  expects 
to  retain  these  qualities  after  death,  the  presumption  is 
in  favour  of  the  animals  also  retaining  them. 

A  list  of  numerous  works  on  the  subject  of  animal 
immortality  may  be  found  in  ''The  Literature  of  the 
Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life,"  Appendix  II.,  New  York, 
187 1,  by  Ezra  Abbot. 

The  Rights  of  an  Animal,  a  new  Essay  in  Ethics.     By 
Edward  Byron  Nicholson,  M.A.     London,  1879. 

This  plea  for  animals'  rights  gives  much  interesting 
information  on  the  animal  question  in  general.  It  con- 
tains a  reprint  of  part  of  John  Lawrence's  chapter  on 
"The  Rights  of  Beasts,"  with  a  memoir  of  the  author. 


128  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

A  Fleafo)"  Mercy  to  Animals.  By  J.  Macaulay.  Lon- 
don, 1 88 1. 

The  author  directs  his  argument,  on  rehgious  grounds, 
against  vivisection  and  the  deh berate  ill-usage  of  ani- 
mals; but  does  not  advocate  any  distinct  theory  of 
rights. 

The  Ethics  of  Diet,  a  Catena  of  Authorities  deprecatory 
of  the  habit  of  Flesh- eating.  By  Howard  Williams, 
M.A.     London  and  Manchester,  1883. 

Of  all  recent  books  on  the  subject  of  animals'  rights  this 
is  by  far  the  most  scholarly  and  exhaustive.  Though 
written  primarily  from  a  vegetarian  standpoint,  it  con- 
tains a  vast  amount  of  general  information  on  the  various 
phases  of  the  animal  question,  and  is  therefore  invaluable 
to  any  earnest  student  of  that  subject.  The  key-note 
of  the  book  is  struck  in  the  following  passage  of  the 
preface : 

'^In  the  general  constitution  of  life  on  our  globe, 
suffering  and  slaughter,  it  is  objected,  are  the  normal 
and  constant  condition  of  things — the  strong  relent- 
lessly and  cruelly  preying  upon  the  weak  in  endless 
succession — and,  it  is  asked,  why  then  should  the  human 
species  form  an  exception  to  the  general  rule,  and  hope- 
lessly fight  against  Nature?  To  this  it  is  to  be  replied, 
first :  that,  although  too  certainly  an  unceasing  and  cruel 
internecine  warfare  has  been  waged  upon  this  atomic 
globe  of  ours  from  the  first  origin  of  Life  until  now,  yet, 
apparently,  there  has  been  going  on  a  slow,  but  not  un- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ANIMALS'    RIGHTS.       1 29 

certain,  progress  towards  the  ultimate  elimination  of  the 
crueller  phenomena  of  Life  ;  that,  if  the  carnivora  form 
a  very  large  proportion  of  living  beings,  yet  the  non- 
carnivora  are  in  the  majority ;  and  lastly,  what  is  still- 
more  to  the  purpose,  that  Man  most  evidently  by  his 
origin  and  physical  organization  belongs  not  to  the 
former  but  to  the  latter;  besides  and  beyond  which, 
that  in  proportion  as  he  boasts  himself  (and  as  he  is 
seen  at  his  best,  and  only  so  far,  he  boasts  himself  with 
justice)  to  be  the  highest  of  all  the  gradually  ascending 
and  co-ordinated  series  of  living  beings,  so  is  he,  in  that 
proportion,  bound  to  prove  his  right  to  the  supreme 
place  and  power,  and  his  asserted  claims  to  moral  as 
well  as  mental  superiority,  by  his  conduct.  In  brief,  in 
so  far  only  as  he  proves  himself  to  be  the  beneficent 
ruler  and  pacificator — and  not  the  selfish  tyrant — of  the 
world,  can  he  have  any  just  title  to  the  moral  pre- 
eminence. ' ' 

Our  Duty  towards  Animals.     By  Philip  Austin.     Lon- 
don, 1885. 

The  author  of  this  pamphlet,  discussing  the  question 
*'in  the  light  of  Christian  philosophy,"  argues  that 
animals  have  no  rights,  and  quotes  many  passages  to 
prove  that  such  a  theory  is  contrary  to  the  teaching  of 
Scripture  and  the  early  Fathers.  ''The  morality,"  he 
says,  "which  satisfied  S.  Augustine  may  surely  be  con- 
sidered good  enough  for  the  English  churchman  of  to- 
day." He  ridicules  Sir  A.  Helps'  idea  of  showing 
''courtesy"  to  animals.  "It  should  be  remembered 
9 


130  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS, 

that  they  are  our  slaves,  not  our  equals,  and  for  this 
reason  it  is  well  to  keep  up  such  practices  as  hunting 
and  fishing,  driving  and  riding,  merely  to  demonstrate  in 
a  practical  way  man's  dominion  over  the  brutes.  .  .  . 
It  is  found  that  an  advocacy  of  the  rights  of  brutes  is 
associated  with  the  lowest  phases  of  morality,  and  that 
kindness  to  the  brutes  is  a  mere  work  of  supereroga- 
tion." 

This  essay  is  well  worth  the  attention  of  humani- 
tarians, as  coming  from  an  out-spoken  opponent  of  ani- 
mals' rights, — one  whose  views  are  an  interesting  survival 
of  the  mediaeval  spirit  of  utter  indifference  to  animal 
suffering.  That  Mr.  Austin's  argument  is  not  a  bur- 
lesque, may  be  shown  by  the  following  passage  from  an 
article  on  "  The  Lower  Animals  "  in  the  ''  Catholic  Dic- 
tionary," by  W.  E.  Addis  and  T.  Arnold,  1884. 

'  '■  As  the  lower  animals  have  no  duties,  since  they  are 
destitute  of  free  will,  without  which  the  performance  of 
duty  is  impossible,  so  they  have  no  rights,  for  right  and 
duty  are  correlative  terms.  The  brutes  are  made  for 
man,  who  has  the  same  right  over  them  which  he  has 
over  plants  and  stones.  He  may,  according  to  the 
express  permission  of  God,  given  to  Noe,  kill  them  for 
his  food  ;  and  if  it  is  lawful  to  destroy  them  for  food, 
and  this  without  strict  necessity,  it  must  also  be  lawful 
to  put  them  to  death,  or  to  inflict  pain  on  them,  for  any 
good  and  reasonable  end,  such  as  the  promotion  of 
man's  knowledge,  health,  etc.,  or  even  for  the  purposes 
of  recreation.  But  a  limitation  must  be  introduced 
here.     It   is  never  lawful   for  a  man  to   take  pleasure 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS.       T31 

directly  in  the  pain  given  to  brutes,  because,  in  doing 
so,  man  degrades  and  brutalizes  his  own  nature. ' '  ^ 

The  Duties  and  the  Rights  of  Man.     By  J.  B.  Austin, 
1887. 

In  Book  V.  the  author  deals  with  the  '^  Indirect  Duties 
of  Man  towards  Animals."  While  not  allowing  more 
than  ''  instinct  "  to  animals,  and  asserting  that  ''■  in  the 
whole  of  the  animal  kingdom  there  is  not  a  single  speci- 
men possessing  even  a  spark  of  reason,"  he  advocates 
humaneness  on  the  ground  that  animals  are  ''sensitive 

^  In  this  connection,  a  letter  written  by  the  late  Cardinal  Man- 
ning to  Dr.  Leffingwell  will  be  of  interest. 

Archbishop's  House,  Westminster,  July  13,  i8gi. 

Dear  Sir  : 

The  Catholic  Church  has  never  made  any  authoritative  declaration 
as  to  our  obligations  toward  the  lower  animals. 

But  some  Catholics  have  misapplied  the  teaching  of  Moral  The- 
ology to  this  question. 

We  owe  duties  to  moral  agents.  The  lower  animals  are  not 
moral  agents.  Therefore  it  is  thought  that  we  owe  them  no  moral 
duties. 

But  this  is  all  irrelevant. 

We  owe  to  ourselves  the  duty  not  to  be  brutal  or  cruel ;  and  we 
owe  to  God  the  duty  of  treating  all  His  creatures  according  to  His 
own  perfections  of  love  and  mercy. 

"  The  righteous  man  is  merciful  to  his  beast." 
Believe  me. 

Yours  faithfully, 

HENRY  E.  CARD.  ARCHB'P. 

Dr.  Albert  Leffingwell. 


132  ANIMALS'   RIGHTS. 

beings."  By  cultivating  the  faculty  of  sympathy,  and 
by  considering  that  sensibility  to  pain  is  common  to 
both  men  and  animals,  we  soon  perceive  that  to  inflict 
needless  and  unjust  pain  upon  the  latter,  is  to  sin  against 
one's  own  nature,  and  therefore  to  commit  a  crime. 


VIVISECTION   IN  AMERICA. 

BY 

ALBERT    LEFFINGWELL,  M.D., 

MEMBER   OF    THE   AMERICAN   PUBLIC   HEALTH   ASSOCIATION,    ETC. 


VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

CHAPTER  I. 

VIVISECTION    IN    MEDICAL    SCHOOLS. 

Upon  no  ethical  question  of  our  day  is  there  a  more 
striking  difference  of  opinion  than  regarding  the  value 
or  the  righteousness  of  experimentation  upon  living  ani- 
mals. About  this  practice  the  atmosphere  of  contro- 
versy is  thick  with  the  dust  of  contradiction  and  dis- 
pute. ''It  is  one  of  the  foundations  of  medical  sci- 
ence/' asserts  one  authority.  "  The  conclusions  of  vivi- 
section are  absolutely  worthless,"  is  the  reply  of  one  of 
the  most  eminent  surgeons  of  our  time. "  ^  "  It  is  a  mild, 
merciful,  and,  for  the  most  part,  painless,  interrogation 
of  Nature,  and  her  secrets  of  life,"  says  a  recent  apolo- 
gist and  advocate  of  vivisection.  "  The  experiments 
of  certain  physiologists  are  those  of  mhuman  devils, ^^ 
says  Canon  Wilberforce,  of  England.  Among  contradic- 
tions like  these  one  may  well  ask,  where  is  truth  to  be 
found  ? 

The  solution  of  this  strange  divergence  of  opinion  is 
not  difficult ;  it  lies  simply  in  the  absence  of  careful  de- 
'  Mr.  Lawson  Tait  of  England. 


136  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

finitions  of  the  words  we  use.  ''  Vivisection  "  is  a  term 
which  inckides  some  kinds  of  operations  upon  Hving 
animals  involving  excruciating  and  prolonged  torture; 
and  some  other  kinds  of  operation  which  simply  destroy 
life  with  the  discomfort  of  induced  disease;  and  yet 
other  experiments  which  involve  no  pain  whatever.  It 
is  a  practice  of  almost  infinite  variety  and  complexity. 
To  speak  of  it  as  inevitably  involving  the  infliction  of 
torture  is  to  betray  ignorance  ;  to  defend  it  on  the 
ground  that  pain  is  never  inflicted,  and  that  alleged 
abuses  rarely,  if  ever,  occur,  is  to  state  what  every  stu- 
dent of  physiology  knows  to  be  false. 

Atrocities  of  vivisection  are  facts  of  history.  It  is  well 
perhaps  at  the  outset  to  take  a  glance  at  some  of  them. 
What  has  been  done  by  men  without  pity,  in  the  hope 
to  wrest  from  Nature  something  she  has  hid  ? 

The  abuses  of  research  include  every  form  of  excru- 
ciating and  lingering  torment  that  can  be  conceived. 
In  the  august  name  of  Science,  animals  have  been  sub- 
jected to  burning,  baking,  freezing ;  saturation  with  in- 
flammable oil  and  then  setting  on  fire ;  starvation  to 
death ;  skinning  alive ;  larding  the  feet  with  nails ; 
crushing  and  tormenting  in  every  imaginable  way. 
Human  ingenuity  has  taxed  itself  to  the  utmost  to  de- 
vise some  new  torture,  that  one  may  observe  what  curi- 
ous results  will  ensue.  For  instance.  Dr.  Brachet,  of 
Paris,  by  various  torments,  inspired  a  dog  with  the  ut- 
most anger,  and  then,  '■'■  when  the  animal  became  furious 
whenever  it  saw  me,  I  put  out  its  eyes.  I  could  then 
appear  before  it  without  the  manifestation  of  any  aver- 


VIVISECTION  IN  MEDIC AI   SCHOOIS.       I  37 

sion.  I  spoke,  and  immediately  its  anger  was  renewed. 
I  then  disorganized  the  internal  ear  as  much  as  I  could, 
and  when  intense  inflammation  made  it  deaf,  then  I  went 
to  its  side,  spoke  aloud,  and  even  caressed  it  without  its 
falling  into  a  rage."  Of  this  one  man  Dr.  EUiotson,  in 
his  work  on  "  Human  Physiology,"  goes  out  of  his  way 
to  say:  ''I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  my  horror 
at  the  amount  of  torture  which  Dr.  Brachet  inflicted.  I 
hardly  think  knowledge  is  worth  having  at  such  a  pur- 
chase."  ^ 

Von  Lesser,  of  Germany,  made  a  long  series  of  ex- 
periments in  scalding  animals  to  death.  He  '■'■  plunged 
a  dog  for  thirty  seconds  into  boiling  water ;  "  he 
*'  scalds  another  four  times,  at  various  intervals ;  "  even 
animals  which  have  just  passed  through  the  pangs  of 
parturition  do  not  escape.^  Dr.  Castex,  of  Paris,  fastens 
a  dog  to  the  dissecting-table  and,  discarding  the  use  of 
anaesthetics,  stands  above  it  ''  with  a  large  empty  stone 
bottle.  I  strike  with  all  my  strength  a  dozen  violent 
blows  on  the  thighs.  By  its  violent  cries  the  animal 
shows  that  the  blows  are  keenly  felt."  Of  another 
victim  :  "I  dislocate  both  the  shoulders,  doing  it  with 
difficulty;  it  appears  to  suffer  greatly;  "  ^  and  so  on 
through  the  long  series. 

Chauveau  "  consecrated  "  more  than  eighty  large  an- 
imals, mostly  horses  and  mules,  worn  out  in  the  service 
of  man,  to  almost  the  extremest  torture  possible  to  con- 

^  "  EUiotson's  Physiology"  p.  448. 

^  "  Virchow's  Archiv."  vol.  Ixxix.,  pp.  248-289. 

^  "  xVrchives  de  Medecine,"  January  1892,  pp.  9-22. 


138  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

ceive,  not,  as  he  expressly  tells  us,  ''  to  solve  any  prob- 
lem in  medical  theory,"  but  simply  to  see  what  degree 
of  pain  can  be  inflicted  through  irritation  of  the  spinal 
cord.  Mantegazza,  of  Milan,  devoted  a  year  to  the  in- 
fliction of  torment  upon  animals — some  pregnant,  some 
nursing  their  young — in  a  long  series  of  experiments 
which  had  no  conceivable  relation  to  the  cure  of  dis- 
ease, and  which  ended  in  the  attainment  of  no  beneficial 
or  even  instructive  results.  To  produce  what  he  desired 
— the  extremest  degree  of  pain  possible — he  invented  a 
new  machine,  which  he  calls  his  '^tormentor,"  and  in 
this  fiendish  device,  little  animals,  which  had  been  first 
'^quilted  with  long  thin  nails,"  so  that  the  slightest 
movement  is  agony,  are  racked  with  added  torments ;  torn 
and  twisted,  crushed  and  lacerated,  hour  by  hour,  till 
crucified  Nature  will  no  longer  endure,  and  sends  death  as 
a  tardy  release.  Yet  all  these  experiments,  repeated  day 
after  day,  were  conducted,  as  Mantegazza  himself  asserts, 
not  with  pity  or  repugnance ;  of  that,  no  admission  is 
made;  but  ''with  much  delight  and  extreme  patience 
for  the  space  of  a  year. ' '  ^  One  stands  in  mute  amaze- 
ment at  revelations  like  these.  Dante  in  his  ''  Inferno  ' ' 
never  dreamed  of  torture  so  awful  as  certain  refinements 
of  torment  which  Professor  Mantegazza  invented  and 
executed;  the  details  cannot  be  told. ^  Yet  is  there  a 
vivisection  more  awful  to  contemplate  than  a  man  like 
this  who  has  succeeded  in  plucking  from  his  heart  every 
sentiment   of  pity    or   instinct    of  compassion  ?     And 

^  "  Fisiologia  del  Dolore"  di  Paoli  Mantegazza,  p.  loi. 
^  "  Fisiologia  del  Dolore,"  pp.  102-3. 


VIVISECTION  IN  MEDICAL   SCHOOLS.       1 39 

how  barren  of  benefit  were  the  results  of  these  experi- 
ments !  Out  of  all  these  multiphed  torments  of  Richet 
and  Mantegazza,  of  Chauveau  and  Castex,  of  Magendie 
and  Brown-Sequard,  Science  has  found  not  one  single 
remedy  to  disease,  not  one  discovery  of  the  slightest 
value  to  mankind  ! 

What  have  the  atrocities  of  experimentation  to  do 
with  America  ?  Much,  every  way.  There  is  hardly  a 
physiologist  in  this  country  who  will  not  admit  that 
such  cruelties  are  to  be  deplored ;  and  that  the  ardor  of 
scientific  curiosity  has  driven  these  men  into  unpardon- 
able excess.  But  how  did  it  happen  ?  Was  it  because 
they  were  by  nature  more  brutal  than  other  men  ? 
Probably  not.  On  one  point  the  teaching  of  History  is 
uniform.  Wherever  is  confei'red  power  without  respon- 
sibility, there  will  follow — there  must  follow — license 
a?td  abuse.  It  is  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect.  Per- 
haps we  execrate  unduly  the  heartlessness  of  a  Nero  or  a 
Robespierre,  a  Magendie  or  a  Mantegazza.  They  were 
but  the  natural  product  of  a  selfish  civilization,  which 
made  them  monsters  of  cruelty,  only  by  the  gift  of  ab- 
solute power. 

But  are  such  glaring  abuses  possible  in  America  ? 
Why  not  ?  The  realm  of  pain  has  here  no  boundaries 
which  investigation  is  required  to  observe.  In  no 
American  State  or  Commonwealth  is  there  any  law,  any 
statute  of  any  kind  whatever,  which  would  prevent 
these  same  experiments  from  being  repeated  here  as  often 
as  desired  !  Now,  is  it  probable  that  in  a  country  like 
ours,  with  a  population  drawn  from  every  foreign  source. 


I40  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

experimental  research,  thus  unrestrained,  remains  free 
from  the  excesses  which  have  stained  it  everywhere  else 
— in  Italy,  in  Germany,  in  France  ?  The  absence  of 
clear,  definite,  and  reasonable  limitations,  beyond  which 
vivisection  becomes  cruelty,  and  should  not  go — is  of 
itself  an  invitation  to  almse.  Such  restrictions  elsewhere 
have  been  successfully  initiated.  In  England,  Scotland, 
and  Ireland — countries  whose  medical  skill  is  quite 
equal  to  our  own — a  painful  experiment  for  the  illustra- 
tion of  facts  already  known  has  been  prohibited  for 
over  fifteen  years.  The  law  there  has  placed  a  limit ; 
and  the  law  is  obeyed.  It  has  not  remedied  every  evil, 
but  at  any  rate  it  has  prevented  to  a  large  extent  that 
''abuse  of  vivisection  by  reckless,  unfeeling,  and  unskil- 
ful persons,"  which  Dr.  John  C.  Dalton  admitted  and 
deplored. 

Not  merely  the  absence  of  legal  limitations,  but  the 
absence  of  all  supervision,  is  another  invitation  to  ex- 
cess. Up  to  fifteen  or  twenty  years  ago,  when  agitation 
against  cruelty  had  just  begun,  it  was  the  custom  not 
only  to  show  results  of  experiments  but  to  perform 
even  the  most  excruciating  operations  on  living  animals 
before  a  class-room  of  students,  as  aids  to  memory. 
There  was  no  special  secrecy  about  them  ;  anyone  able 
to  find  his  way  to  the  lecture-room  could  observe  every- 
thing. If  there  were  indefensible  cruelties,  they  were 
at  any  rate  as  unconcealed  and  as  openly  done  as  in 
Paris  to-day.  Now,  all  this  is  changed.  Experimenta- 
tion has  vastly  increased ;  but  it  exists  largely  in  com- 
parative secrecy,  behind  locked  doors,  guarded  by  sen- 


VIVISECTION'  IN  MEDICAL   SCHOOLS.       14I 

tinels.  To  the  largest  physiological  laboratory  of  New 
York  City  even  the  President  of  the  Society  for  the 
Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals  cannot  gain  admit- 
tance during  hours  for  ''work."  Against  reasonable 
privacy  of  this  kind  no  criticism  can  be  justly  urged. 
An  anatomical  dissecting-room,  for  instance,  ought  not 
to  be  open  to  every  passer-by.  But  if  bodies  for  dis- 
section were,  to-day,  as  frequently  the  result  of  myste- 
rious murder  or  violated  graves  as  in  the  time  of  Burke 
and  Hare,  and  yet  all  entrance  to  the  dissecting-room, 
all  inspection  or  oversight,  were  absolutely  refused,  we 
may  be  sure  that  an  alarmed  and  indignant  public  sen- 
timent would  demand — what  has  been  given — not  the 
pubhcity  of  dissection,  but  its  supervision  and  control 
by  the  law.  For  the  world  does  not  like  overmuch 
secrecy,  and  right  doing  never  needs  it.  We  are 
touched  with  a  feehng  of  horror,  to-day,  not  so  much 
by  the  long  procession  in  the  Auto-da-fe  as  by  remem- 
brance of  all  the  awful  mystery  which  preceded  it ;  the 
dim-lighted  underground  dungeons;  the  application  of 
the  ''question"  at  midnight;  the  groans  for  mercy 
which  met  no  response  ;  the  shrieks  of  agony  which  only 
the  stone  walls  echoed.  The  Bastile  rises  without  pro- 
test ;  but  in  course  of  centuries  it  becomes  an  interroga- 
tion-point which  Paris  cannot  answer ;  then  comes  a 
14th  of  July,  and  it  is  swept  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 
Even  Science  needs  that  Pity  should  stand  by  her  side. 
True,  from  the  standpoint  of  anti-vivisection,  inspection 
is  not  demanded;  it  means,  one  says,  "  compromise  and 
acknowledgment. ' '     But  it   means    more   than  this ;   it 


142  VIVISECTION  IN-  AMERICA. 

means  accurate  knowledge  of  all  the  facts  ;  the  disper- 
sion of  error;  illumination,  enlightenment,  certitude. 
'^  Misjudgment  of  vivisection  exists,"  one  says.  Well, 
how  is  it  to  be  dispelled  by  all  this  concealment  and 
secrecy  ?  No  real  impediment  to  any  experimentation 
that  is  not  abuse,  can  result  from  bringing  laboratories 
and  all  their  work  under  the  inspection  of  qualified  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Societies  for  protection  of  Animals' 
Rights  and  the  prevention  of  cruelty. 

Upon  the  excesses  into  which  a  perverted  zeal  or  cruel 
indifference  has  led  experimenters  in  America,  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  dwell.  Proofs  are  abundant  enough  ; 
one  needs  only  to  study  our  American  text-books  of 
physiology,  where  the  various  experiments  performed, 
^^  for  teaching  purposes,"  every  year,  are  frankly  related. 
Once  we  admit  the  right  to  torture  a  living  creature 
simply  as  an  aid  to  memory,  and  where  shall  we  put 
bounds  to  the  cruelty  one  may  inflict  ?  Is  it  an  abuse 
of  experimental  science  to  cut  out  the  stomach  from  a 
living  dog — the  ''infamous  experiment  of  Magendie," 
as  Dr.  Sharpey  calls  it  ?  I  have  seen  it  done,  not  in 
Europe,  but  America.  To  cut  down  upon  the  spinal 
cord  of  a  dog  for  the  demonstration  of  its  functions — 
an  operation  which  Dr.  Michael  Foster,  of  Cambridge 
University,  has  never  seen  performed,  from  "horror  of 
the  pain?  "  ^here  is  there  a  medical  college  in  Amer- 
ica in  which  it  has  never  been  done?  Is  it  an  abuse  of 
vivisection  to  freeze  rabbits  to  death  before  a  class  of 
!/  young  men  and  young  women  merely  to  illustrate  what 
i   everyone  knew  in  advance  ?     It  is  done  annually.     To 


VIVISECTION-  IN  MEDICAL   SCHOOLS.       143 

divide  the  most  acutely  sensitive  nerve  in  the  whole 
body  in  order  to  prove  what  nobody  doubts  ?  It  is  one 
of  the  ' '  regular  experiments. ' '  To  mutilate  a  living  ani- 
mal so  severely  that  left  to  itself,  death  might  occur ; 
to  fasten  it  so  that  struggle  is  useless  ;  to  set  in  operation 
delicate  machinery  which  shall  cause  it  to  breathe  by 
artificial  force,  and  so  to  keep  it  through  a  long  night  of 
terror  and  pain  till  "■  wanted  "  for  the  final  sacrifice  of 
demonstration  before  students  on  the  following  day?  It 
is  not  of  infrequent  occurrence  in  American  laboratories. 
'^  It  helps  memory,"  says  one.  But  what  gain  to  mem- 
ory can  outweigh  that  blunting  of  compassion,  that  de- 
terioration of  pity,  which  all  this  familiarity  with  tort- 
ure tends  to  induce?  '^  What  doth  it  profit  a  man  "  to 
see  it  all  ?  Let  Dr.  Bigelow,  late  Professor  of  Surgery 
at  Harvard  University,  reply  :  '■ '  Watch  the  students  at 
a  vivisection.  It  is  the  blood  and  suffering,  not  the 
science,  that  rivets  their  breathless  attention.  If  hospi- 
tal service  makes  young  students  less  tender  of  suffering, 
vivisection  deadens  their  humanity  and  begets  indiffer- 
ence to  it." 

''But,"  somebody  protests,  ''surely  there  should  be 
no  limitations  or  conditions  regarding  original  re- 
searches ?  ' '  Well,  why  not  ?  Investigation  in  America 
has  been  absolutely  unrestrained ;  has  it  accomplished 
anything  of  value?  Have  not  even  American  scientists 
been  subject  to  an  enthusiasm  that  during  investigation, 
takes  no  account  of  the  pain  it  inflicts  ?  Look,  for  ex- 
ample, at  that  series  of  one  hundred  and  forty  one  experi- 
ments performed  not  long  ago  in  Jersey  City,  opposite 


144  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

New  York.  The  object  of  the  experimenter  was,  as  he 
tells  us  in  his  account  of  them,  ''  to  produce  the  greatest 
amount  of  injury"  to  the  spinal  cord  and  its  attach- 
ments without  killing  the  animal  outright ;  and  with 
this  end  in  view  a  great  number  of  dogs,  with  hob- 
bled limbs,  were  dropped  from  a  height  of  twenty 
five  feet,  so  as  to  effect  all  the  severest  injuries  thus 
designed.  Strange,  indeed,  it  is  to  read  the  record 
of  experiment  after  experiment,  and  to  note  that  ' '  even 
a  few  hours  after  they  had  been  dropped,  when  the  ex- 
perimenter presented  himself  to  their  view,  the  dogs  not 
severely  injured  never  failed  to  greet  their  master  with 
extravagant  expressions  of  joy.' ''  Well,  what  judgment 
are  we  entitled  to  pass  on  these  investigations  ?  What 
valuable  discovery  for  the  benefit  of  suffering  humanity 
accrued  therefrom  ?  The  highest  European  authority 
upon  medical  questions  shall  tell  us  :  ''  //  is  a  record 
of  the  most  wanton  and  stupidest  cruelty  we  have  ever  seen 
chronicled  under  the  guise  of  scientific  experiments.  If 
this  were  a  type  of  experimental  inquiry  indulged  in  by  the 
profession,  public  feeling  would  be  rightly  against  us ; 
for,  apart  from  the  utterly  useless  nature  of  the  observa- 
tions, so  far  as  regards  human  surgery,  there  is  a  callous 
indifference  shown  in  the  descriptions  of  the  sufferings 
of  the  poor  brutes  which  is  positively  revolting.  What 
conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  these  unscientific  experi- 
ments ?  That  dogs  falling  from  a  height  of  twenty-four 
feet  were  liable  to  rupture  or  injure  lungs,  liver,  kidneys, 
viscera,  blood-vessels,  or  bones  ?  Is  there  anything  new- 
er useful  in  this  grand  discovery?     That  pathological 


VIVISECTION  IN  MEDICAL   SCHOOLS.       1 45 

changes  rarely  occurred  in  the  spinal  cord  ?  Does  this 
help  us  to  any  similar  conclusion,  after  totally  dissimilar 
railway  accidents  to  man  ?  Not  the  least.  We  trust 
no  one  in  our  profession,  or  out  of  it,  will  be  tempted 
by  the  fancy  that  these  or  such  like  experiments  are 
scientific  or  justifiable.  Badly  planned  and  without  a 
chance  of  teaching  us  anything,  and  carried  out  in  a 
wholesale  cruel  way,  we  cannot  but  feel  ashamed  of  the 
work  as  undertaken  by  a  member  of  our  p7'ofession.^''  ^ 

This  is  the  judgment  of  the  British  Medical  Journal, 
the  leading  authority  of  Great  Britain.  Here  we  have 
criticism  based  upon  knowledge  of  what  constitutes  an 
abuse  of  scientific  research.  It  cannot  be  swept  aside  as 
the  wailing  of  sentiment  or  the  exaggeration  of  ignorance. 

What  may  be  done  in  America  to  prevent  these  abuses? 

Denounce  the  entire  medical  profession  as  in  a  league 

with  ''  inhuman  devils  "  of  cruelty  ?    That  is  folly.    The 

man  who  has  watched  at  midnight  with  some  old  family 

physician,  by  the  bedside  of  his  dying  wife  or  child,  will 

not  hear  you.     Agitate  for  total  abohtion  ?     It  will  be 

achieved  sometime,  when  the  conduct  of  humanity  to-^  ^ 

ward  all  that  breathes  and  suffers  shall  be  governed  by      ^^ 

ideas  of  altruistic  equity.    But  what  shall  we  aim  to  do       « 

for  our  country,   and  to-day  ?     Is  not  reform  of  abuse      ^ 

the  first  practical  step  ?     The  duty  of  the  hour,  it  seems      « 

to  me,  is  the  excitation  of  interest  in  this  subject ;  the 

acquisition    of  accurate    knowledge  about    it ;   the  en-     *'< 

couragement  of  intelligent  personal  investigation.      "  Is 

it  true,"  one  should   ask,  ''that  such   awful  agony  has       \ 

^   "British  Medical  Journal,"  Nov.  15,  1891.  ^^ 

10 


146  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

been  repeatedly  inflicted  upon  animals  by  European 
physiologists,  and  that  proof  of  their  cruelties  is  based 
upon  their  own  statements  and  reports  ?  Can  it  possibly 
be  true  that  not  a  single  one  of  these  accursed  experi- 
ments has  yielded  to  medical  science  any  discovery  of 
the  least  practical  value  in  the  treatment  of  disease  ?  Is 
it  true  that  no  law  prevents  the  repetition  of  these  abuses 
in  my  own  State  ?  Is  it  true  that  such  painful  experi- 
ments are  unnecessary  for  the  attainment  of  medical 
knowledge  and  skill ;  that  every  year  a  host  of  phy- 
sicians and  surgeons  graduate  from  the  medical  schools 
of  England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland  who  never  once  in  the 
course  of  their  studies  are  asked  to  see  an  animal  tort- 
ured that  lessons  may  be  remembered  ?  ' '  Decision 
upon  questions  like  these  is  not  difficult ;  but  let  it  be 
conviction  based  upon  solid  facts ;  for  that  alone  has 
chance  to  be  heard,  or  opportunity  to  be  effective  in  re- 
sults. Men  will  differ  regarding  the  justification  of 
research  where  pain  is  not  involved  ;  but  never  need  the 
advocacy  of  use  bewilder  us  into  blind  condonation  of 
revolting  abuse.  It  is,  then,  solely  to  the  creation  of  an 
intelligent  public  sentiment  that  we  can  look  with  hope- 
fulness for  the  slightest  mitigation  or  prevention  of  the 
evils  deplored.  Its  evolution  may  be  slow.  But,  once 
aroused,  public  sentiment  in  America  is  irresistible  when 
based  on  Right ;  and  before  this  tribunal  no  cruelty  or 
abuse  of  scientific  research  can  ultimately  escape  con- 
demnation and  the  stamp  of  atrocity  and  crime. 


CHAPTER  II. 

VIVISECTION    IN    AMERICAN    COLLEGES. 

Thus  far  we  have  examined  the  question  of  unre- 
stricted experimentation  as  a  method  of  medical  instruc- 
tion. That  it  would  be  confined  to  this  purpose  no 
attentive  observer  of  the  modern  scientific  spirit  could 
for  a  moment  believe.  Once  let  it  be  granted  that  sen- 
tient creatures  may  be  subjected  to  any  degree  of  pain 
for  the  simple  illustration  of  well-known  facts,  and  it 
is  certainly  difficult  to  say  why  the  practice  should  not 
be  so  extended  as  to  gratify  the  scientific  curiosity  of  any- 
one who  desires  seriously  to  investigate  the  phenomena 
of  life.  Within  the  past  few  years  a  new  aspiration  has 
become  prominent — the  wish  to  penetrate  to  the  very 
heart  of  Nature,  and  to  pluck  from  thence  each  mystery 
which  there  lies  hidden.  Since  for  the  future,  one  of  the 
chief  aims  of  scientific  endeavour  is  to  wTest  from  un- 
willing Nature  her  secret  thought,  we  could  have  known 
for  certainty,  years  ago,  that  this  idea  would  not  be 
confined  within  the  walls  of  the  medical  school. 

That  which  any  careful  observer  of  recent  tendencies 
in  thought  might  have  foreseen,  has  actually  occurred. 
Spurred  by  competitive  rivalry  into  provision  for  the 
most  advanced  courses  of  instruction  ;  hindered  by  no 


148  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

Strong  public  sentiment,  which  should  demand  the  least 
safeguard  against  danger  or  abuse,  nearly  every  great  ed- 
ucational institution  of  America  is  widening  the  oppor- 
tunity for  its  young  men  and  young  women  to  investi- 
gate the  phenomena  -of  living  things, — not  as  an  adjunct 
to  professional  study,  but  merely  as  a  phase  of  that  scien- 
tific training  which  in  future  is- to  form  a  part  of  a  liberal 
education. 

The  change  has  been  gradual  and  unobtrusive.  In 
the  printed  catalogues  of  colleges  we  may  find  little 
note  of  the  study  of  physiology ;  that,  to-day,  is  merely 
a  department  of  Biology,  which  includes  within  its  scope 
not  only  the  functions,  but  also  the  structure  and  devel- 
opment of  all  living  creatures.  The  American  university 
of  to-day  has  no  thought  of  fashioning  itself  after  the 
ancient  models  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge ;  its  ideals  are 
found  rather  in  Germany  or  France.  No  American  col- 
lege at  present  reckons  itself  completely  equipped  with- 
out its  biological  laboratory  and  its  staff  of  instructors, 
conversant  with  newest  methods  of  foreign  investiga- 
tion. 

Nor  is  the  modern  aim  simply  to  teach  students  the 
gathered  facts  of  previous  inquiries.  The  new  ideal 
would  inspire  students,  not  to  believe,  but  to  investi- 
gate. "  Every  encouragement  is  afforded  to  those  who 
show  aptitude  for  original  research,"  is  the  frequently- 
recorded  promise  to  the  young  inquirer.  Let  us  take 
a  few  representative  American  Colleges,  and  note  some 
of  the  advantages  they  are  offering  to  the  student  of 
to-day. 


VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICAN  CO  LIEGES.       1 49 

Harvard  University. — '^  Students  working  in  the 
Physiological  Laboratory  study  the  various  digestive  and 
respiratory  processes  .  .  .  and  devote  themselves 
to  similar  problems  and  processes. 

"All  the  apparatus  used  in  this  laboratory  is  contrived 
and  made  expressly  for  it." — From  "What  Harvard 
College  Is." — By  F.  Bolles,  Sec'y. 

Yale  University  ;  Course  128. — "  Huxley's  Lessons 
in  Elementary  Physiology,  with  occasional  lectures  and 
illustrative  experijnents.  ...  A  course  of  lectures 
on  Experimental  Toxicology^  is  open  to  students  in  the 
above  course." 

Williams  College. — "Anatomy  is  studied  only  so 
far  as  it  may  be  necessary  to  an  intelligent  discussion  of 
Physiology.  An  effort  is  made  to  exhibit  not  only  the 
results,  bttt  also  the  methods  of  physiological  research. 
The  new  Thompson  Biological  Laboratory  is  a 
large  building  of  four  stories.  The  laboratory  is  well 
equipped  with  .  .  .  all  the  appliances  for  general 
and  advanced  work." 

Tufts  College. — "  The  work  in  Biology  begins 
with  the  study  of  Physiology,  which  is  required  of  all 
students  in  the  Classical  and  Philosophical  Courses. 
.  .  .  Subjects  are  taught  by  lectures  and  by  laboratory 
work,  the  object  being  to  impai-t  the  scientific  method, 
rather  than  a  large  number  of  unimportant  factsQ.). 

^  '■'■Toxicology :  The  science  which  treats  of  poisons." — Web- 
ster. 


ISO  VIVISECTION  IN"  AMERICA. 

^'  Provision  is  made  for  original  investigations,  and 
students  will  be  encouraged  to  continue  their  work  in 
this  department  (Biology)  by  means  of  research  on  special 
problems. ' ' 

Princeton  (College  of  New  Jersey). — ''An  ad- 
vanced course  in  Biology  has  been  established  .... 
the  objects  in  view  being  (i)  To  foster  a  spirit  of  origi- 
nal research ;  (2)  to  qualify  advanced  students  to  be- 
come teachers.  It  is  not  restricted  to  students  who  are 
candidates  for  a  degree,  if  they  possess  sufficient  element- 
ary knowledge,  to  profit  by  the  instruction.  These 
courses  are  of  a  comprehensive  and  elastic  character,  and 
include  much  laboratory  work  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  instructor." 

Syracuse  University. — ''Biology  is  required  in  all 
the  courses  during  the  third  term  of  the  sophomore  year. 
To  students  showing  special  aptness  there  is  opportunity 
for  continuous  work  along  special  lines." 

University  of  Rochester. — "  Instruction  is  given 
by  means  of  laboratory  work,  lectures,  and  recitations, 
especial  attention  being  given  to  the  first. 
Physiology  :  Experiments  performed  by  the  students  in- 
dividually form  a  feature  of  the  course.  Honor  Studies  : 
Experimental  work  on  digestion  and  on  the  functions 
of  nerves.      (Seniors.)  " 

Northwestern  University. — (^Physiology. ^  "The 
work  consists  of  laboratory  work,  four  hours  a  week,  with 


VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICAN  COLIEGES.      151 

weekly  lectures  upon  comparative  anatomy,  amply  illus- 
trated by  dissections  and  demonstrations. ' ' 

Cornell  University. — ''  In  all  the  courses,  labora- 
tory work  forms  an  integral  part.  With  the  general 
courses  in  Physiology  and  Zoology,  one-third  of  the 
time  devoted  to  the  subject  is  occupied  on  laboratory  work 
or  demonstrations.  In  the  advanced  courses,  laboratory 
work  is  proportionally  much  greater  in  amount." 

University  of  Michigan. — The  courses  in  Physiol- 
ogy are  arranged  for  those  who  intend  to  become  phy- 
sicians or  dentists,  those  who  propose  to  teach  the 
subject,  and  those  who  contemplate  making  Biology  a  spe- 
cialty. .  .  .■  In  the  laboratory,  the  student  learns  to 
use  the  apparatus  ajtd  methods  employed  in  ordinary  phys- 
iological experiments.  Advanced  students  are  given  an 
opportunity  to  begin  research  work.  .  .  .  Tha 
laboratories  of  the  University  are  provided  with  the  nec- 
essary facilities,  not  only  for  ordinary  biological  work, 
but  for  somewhat  extended  research,  and  every  encourage- 
ment is  given  to  the  students,  especially  in  the  last  year,  to 
devote  themselves  to  original  i?tvestigations. ' ' 

Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University  (CaUfornia). — 
*'  I.  General  Anatomy  and  Physiology :  Laboratory 
work  seven  and  one-half  hours  a  week  through  the  year. 
.  .  .  The  laboratory  work  will  give  occasion  to  discuss 
many  questions  of  general  biology.  2.  Ani?nal  Physi- 
ology :  .  .  .  Laboratory  work  five  hours  a  week 
through  the  year.      It  includes  an  experimental  course  in 


^ 

Y 


152  VI  VISE  CTIOy  IN"  A  ME  RICA . 

Physiology,  based  upon  Foster's  '  Physiology  '  as  the  text. 
The  Graduate  Courses  in  Physiology  and  Histology 
will  include  the  thorough  study  of  some  of  the  more  re- 
cent treatises  of  various  subjects  in  Histology  and  Physi- 
ology, and  a  repetition  of  a  sufficient  number  of  experi- 
me7ital  investigations  to  give  a  discipline  in  the  7nethods  of 
investigation.  .  .  .  Students  in  this  department  will 
occupy  the  latter  portion  of  their  courses,  mainly  on 
some  original  research  the  subject  of  which  is  determined 
by  previous  training — and  their  inclinations y 

University  of  Chicago. — ^^ Autumn  Quarter  (Assist- 
ant Professor  Loeb)  :  Original  investigations  in  Physiolo- 
gy. Laboratory  work  in  physiology  of  the  sense-organs 
and  the  nervous  system.  Winter  Quarter  :  Laboratory 
work  in  the  physiology  of  circulation,  respiration,  and 
animal  heat.  Spidng  Quarter:  Laboratory  work  in 
physiology  of  the  nerves  and  muscles,  and  in  general 
physiology.  Summer  Quainter :  Physiological  Demon- 
strations. It  is  the  aim  of  this  course  to  give  to  teachers 
in  high  schools  and  colleges  an  opportunity  to  become 
familiar  with  the  typical  physiological  experiments. ' ' 

This  is  by  no  means  a  complete  list,  but  it  serves  as  a 
fair  illustration  of  the  position  attained  to-day  by  that 
spirit  of  scientific  inquiry,  which,  within  a  quarter  of  a 
century,  step  by  step,  has  conquered  its  way  into  domi- 
nant ascendency  over  the  old  and  long-established 
ideals  of  collegiate  training. 

In  regard  to  most  of  the  group  of  sciences  included 


VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICAN  COLIEGES.       I  53 

under  the  name  of  Biology,  to  the  study  of  organization, 
of  tissue  and  development,  there  is  no  question  of  their 
vast  importance  and  value.  But  the  complete  study  of 
animal  functions  introduces  the  young  student  to  another 
phase  of  investigation — the  observation  of  pain.  One 
may  indeed  learn  all  the  truths  of  Physiology  without 
this  experience ;  but  he  must  then  be  willing  to  accept 
facts  upon  others'  testimony  ;  and  the  new  scientific  spirit 
insists  that  personal  investigation  must  supersede  belief. 
For  example,  you  may  learn  perfectly  each  and  all  of 
the  functions  of  the  nervous  system,  by  the  careful  study 
of  recorded  facts.  But  suppose  you  demand  that  the 
recorded  fact  shall  be  emphasized  ' '  by  experi  ment  and 
opportunity  for  observation  ?  ' '  Then  some  creature 
must  be  put  to  an  agonizing  death  to  gratify  your 
curiosity.  Now  how  far  is  this  method  of  study  a  per- 
missible element  in  the  training  of  young  men  at  American 
colleges  ? 

I  think  this  inquiry  one  of  great  importance.  Here 
is  no  question  of  '^cruelty,"  for  the  essence  of  that 
vice  is  the  infliction  of  agony  for  amusement,  the  cau- 
sation of  wanton  torment,  of  purposeless  pain.  Nobody 
acquainted  with  the  earnest  men  who  direct  the  science- 
teaching  departments  of  our  colleges,  will  for  a  moment 
fancy  them  guilty  of  aimless  torture.  But  how  far  will 
scientific  enthusiasm  lead  them  on  ?  To  what  extent 
do  the  university  authorities  in  America  permit  the 
causation  of  pain,  simply  for  purposes  of  illustration  ? 

Let  us  make  the  question  as  definite  as  possible.  One 
of  the  principal  European  experimenters  to-day  is  Dr. 


154  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

Simon  Strieker,  of  Vienna.  Not  long  since  I  was  told  by 
a  professor  in  one  of  the  leading  medical  colleges  of  New 
York,  that  he  had  himself  witnessed  the  most  horrible 
tortures  conceivable  inflicted  by  this  man  upon  living 
monkeys, — animals  specially  selected  because  in  their 
dying  torments  their  facial  expression  became  so  like  to 
human  agony  !  A  European  journal  recently  describes 
one  of  his  class-demonstrations,  wherein  he  destroys  the 
spinal  cord  of  a  dog  by  thrusting  a  steel  probe  into  the 
spinal  column,  producing,  we  may  say,  the  most  atro- 
cious torture  it  is  possible  to  conceive.  The  animal 
evinced  its  agony  by  fearful  convulsions ;  but  it  was 
permitted  to  utter  no  cry  that  might  evoke  sympathy, 
for  previous  to  the  demonstration  its  laryngeal  nerves 
had  been  cut !  No  vivisection  could  be  more  utterly 
unjustifiable  or  more  fiendish  in  atrocity.  And  yet  with 
entire  and  perfect  good  faith  this  demonstrator  might 
have  repeated  the  well-worn  formula,  that  he  was  '  ^  care- 
ful to  inflict  no  unnecessary  pain."  '^I  know,"  said 
Herr  Strieker,  on  one  occasion,  ''  that  this  experiment 
will  seem  cruel ;  but  it  is  '■  necessary  '  that  my  hearers 
should  have  its  effects  impressed  on  their  minds  !  ' ' 
Surely,  there  was  never  more  fit  example  of  Milton's 
words : 

"  So  spake  the  fiend,  and  with  Necessity, 
The  tyrant's  plea,  excused  his  dev'lish  deeds." 

Now  for  this  same  reason,  merely  as  a  method  of 
teaching,  what  prevents  that  detnonst7'atio ft- experiment  of 
Strieker  from  being  regularly  repeated  before  young  i?ie7i 


J  VI VSE  CTION  IN  A  M  ERIC  A  N  C  OILE  GES.       I  5  5 

and  young  women  in   the  leadiftg  colleges  and  iLniversiiies 
of  the  United  States  ? 

I  am  indebted  to  a  distinguished  member  of  the  medi- 
cal profession,  Dr.  Ballou,  of  Providence,  R.  I.,  for  in- 
formation which  seems  to  me  to  afford  a  complete  an- 
swer to  this  question.  Desiring  to  ascertain  whether  any 
restrictions,  hindering  the  use  of  torture  as  a  means  of 
illustration,  had  been  imposed  by  those  having  control  of 
our  educational  institutions,  he  wrote  to  the  presidents 
of  certain  representative  American  colleges,  asking  them 
whether  any  regulations  existed,  defining  or  limiting  the 
extent  to  which  living  animals  might  be  subjected  to 
painful  experiment  in  the  College  laboratory.  In  nearly 
all  cases  the  inquiry  was  accompanied  by  special  ref- 
erence to  statements  in  the  printed  catalogue,  and  the 
correspondence  therefore  seems  to  have  varied  somewhat 
in  phraseology,  although  the  leading  question  was  in- 
variably the  same.  The  following  letter  is  fairly  rep- 
resentative of  this  request  for  light : 

^'  To  the  President  of  The  University  of  California. 

''  Dear  Sir  :  Referring  to  your  ^  Register  '  and  to  the 
outlines  of  biological  studies  there  presented,  may  I  ask 
whether  the  University  of  California,  by  any  written 
instructions,  has  placed  any  limitations  to  painful  experi- 
vientation  upon  living  animals  ?  Are  students 
permitted  to  carry  their  investigations  to  any  exte7it  in- 
clination may  suggest  ?  In  this  matter,  in  short,  does 
the  University  regard  it  best  to  leave  all  questions  as  to 


IS6  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

methods   of  research  solely  to  investigators  themselves 
— pupils  or  instructors  ?  ' ' 

The  following  extracts  are  from  some  of  the  replies 
he  received.     The  italics  are  my  own. 

From  Rev.  Dr.  Timothy  Dwight, 
President  of  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Ct. 

''In  answer  to  your  letter  of  the  14th  I 
would  say  that  we  have  had  no  occasion  to  lay  down 
any  definite  restrictions  as  to  the  matter  to  which  you 
refer,  as  we  have  entire  confidence  in  the  professors  hav- 
ing special  charge  of  the  courses  of  study  in  physiolo- 
gy-     ••      • 

"Timothy  Dwight." 

From  Charles  W.  Eliot,  LL.D., 
President  of  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

''  Original  research  in  Biology  and  allied  branches  is 
not  limited  in  any  way  at  this  University.  The  instruc- 
tors take  all  responsibility  regarding  methods  of  research. 
The  students  work  wholly  under  the  direction  of  the 
instructors,  and  have  no  discretion  as  to  inethods  em- 
ployed. 

"  Charles  W.  Eliot." 

From  Rev.  Dr.  Francis  L.  Patton, 
President  of  the  College  of  New  Jersey,  Princeton. 

.     '^  The  College  of  New  Jersey  has  not  defined 


VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICAN  COILEGES.       157 

or  limited,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  goes,  the  extent  to 
which  living  animals  may  be  subjected  to  pain.     .     .     . 

'^  Francis  L.  Patton." 

From  James  R.  Day,  D.D., 

President  Syracuse  University,  N.  Y.' 

''In  reply  to  your  first  question  would  say 
that  there  are  no  written  restrictions. 

"  We  leave  the  decision  to  the  judgment  of  the  inves- 
tigator. _       ,, 

''James  R.  Day.  ' 

From  James  B.  Angell,  LL.D.,  President  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 

"The  methods  in  use  in  our  biological  laboratory 
are  those  ordinarily  employed,  I  think,  elsewhere  in 
similar  institutions ;  but  students  are  not  permitted 
to  work  on  living  animals  except  under  supervi- 
sion. 

"James  B.  Angell." 

From  William  R.  Harper,  Ph.D.,  D.D., 
President  of  The  University  of  Chicago,  111.    [Founded 
by  John  D.  Rockefeller.] 

.     "  We  have  not  thought  it  wise  to  place  any 
restriction  upon  experimentation  involving  prolonged  or 

severe  pain. 

"Wm.  R.  Harper." 


158  VII VSE  CTIOX  IN  A  MERICA . 

From  Rev.  Dr.  Charles  F.  Thwing.  President  of  the 
Western  Reserve  University,  Cleveland,  O. 

'^  In  answer  to  your  courteous  inquiry,  I 
beg  to  say  that  a  professor  who  is  worthy  of  being  made 
the  head  of  the  Department  of  Biology  is  certainly 
worthy  of  deciding  the  important  question  which  you 
ask.i 

"  Charles  F.  Thwing." 

From  President  Charles  Kendall  Adams,   LL.D., 
University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis. 

''There  are  no  rules  or  regulations  limiting 
our  professors  of  zoology  in  the  matter  of  vivisection. 
I  have  the  impression  that  all  the  authorities  of  the  Uni- 
versity have  confidence  that  our  professors  will  not  use 
their  privileges  in  an  improper  manner. 

''  C.  K.  Adams." 

From  G.  A.  Gates,  LL.D., 
President  Iowa  College,  Grinnell,  la. 

"The  College  authorities  have  never  had 
occasion  to  take  any  action  in  the  matter.     Personally, 

^  What  test  of  "  worth  "  would  Rev.  Dr.  Thwing  apply?  Pro- 
fessor Gad,  of  Berlin,  obtained  a  year's  leave  of  absence  during 
1893-94  for  the  purpose  of  "  regulating"  the  physiological  courses 
of  instruction  at  the  Western  Reserve  University.  If  Professor 
Gad  is  "worthy,"  why  might  not  Professor  Strieker  be  regarded 
as  worthy  to  succeed  him  as  a  teacher  of  foreign  methods  ? 


VIVISECTION  I.Y  AMERICA  A'    COILEGES.       I  59 

I  should  leave  it  to  the  judgment  of  the  instructor,  or 
else  change  instructors. 

"G.  A.  Gates." 

From  Henry  Wade  Rogers,  LL.D., 
President  of  Northwestern  University,  Evanston,  111. 

.  .  .  ''  The  University  authorities  have  not,  by 
any  written  regulations,  defined  or  limited  the  extent  to 
which  living  animals,  used  for  experiment,  may  be  sub- 
jected to  pain.  We  have  felt  that  the  matter  could  be 
safely  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  preceptor.     .     .     . 

^' Henry  Wade  Rogers." 

From  Rev.  Dr.  Elmer  H.  Capen, 
President  of  Tufts  College,  Boston,  Mass. 

.  .  .  ^' The  methods  of  doing  work  in  the  several 
departments  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  individual  in- 
structors. In  reference  to  the  Department  of  Biology,  I 
have  never  known  of  experiments  involving  needless  pain 
to  the  lower  animals. 

'''E.  H.  Capen." 

From  David   Starr  Jordan,  LL.D.,  President  of  Le- 
land  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Palo  Alto,  Cal. 

.     .     .     ''  In  matters  of  this  kind,  I  am  decidedly  of 

the  opinion  that  no  restrictiojts  should  be  put  upon  the 

student  except  those  which  the  professor  may  lay  upon 

him. 

*'  David  S.  Jordan." 


l60  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

From  Franklin  Carter,  Ph.D.,  LL.D., 

President  of  Williams  College,  Williamstown,  Mass. 

^*We  have  not  laid   down  any  restrictions  in    our 

biological  work,  on  our  teachers.     The  principle  in  the 

College  has  always  been  in  every  department  to  trust  the 

professor  wholly,  unless  there  seemed  reason  for  distrust. 

''  Franklin  Carter." 

From  J.  G.  Schurman,  D.Sc,  LL.D., 
President  of  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

"  President's  Room, 
"  Cornell  University,  March  8th. 

^'AU  experiments,  in  the  courses  in  Physiology,  are 

upon  animals  just  killed  or  completely  anaesthetized.^ 

'^  J.  G.  Schurman." 

From  Rev.  Dr.  William  De  Witt  Hyde, 
President  of  Bowdoin  College,  Brunswick,  Me. 

'^  The  College  has  no  rules  or  regulations  on  the  sub- 
ject of  experiments  in  Biology. 

^' Wm.  D.  W.  Hyde." 

From  Isaac  Sharpless,  Sc.D.,  LL.D., 
President  of  Haverford  College,  Haverford,  Pa. 

"  Haverford  College,  Pa. 
''  Our  trustees  have  forbidden  any  vivisec- 
tion in  our  laboratory.     We  do  not  find  this  a  serious  dis- 

^  The  question  asked  was  not  answered. 


VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICAN  COLLEGES.       l6l 

advantage,    though   we  have  to   omit   certain   lines   of 

research. 

"  J.   Sharpless." 

In  a  few  instances  the  letter  of  inquiry  was  referred  by 
the  president  of  the  college  to  the  Professor  of  Biology. 
Some  of  the  replies  received  from  this  source  were  as 
follows  : 

"  Biological  Laboratory,  Hamilton  College,  N.  Y. 

.  ^'/  am  glad  to  say  that  no  restrictions  have 
been  placed  upon  the  experimental  work  of  this  de- 
partment. The  most  painful  experiments  have  been 
omitted.  .  .  .  Anaesthetics  are  used  in  the  few  ex- 
periments tried,  and  the  animal  is  not  allowed  to  recover 
consciousness. 

''A.   D.   MORELL." 

"  Oberlin  College,  March  5th. 

.     .     .      ^'  I  think  that  the  judgment  of  preceptors 

and  of  really  advanced  pupils  should  be  trusted  in  such 

matters. 

''  Albert  A.  Wright." 

"  University  of  California,  March  gth. 
.  .  .  ' '  Your  letter  to  President  Kellogg,  making 
certain  inquiries  about  our  work  in  Biology  has  been 
handed  to  me  for  replying.  I  beg  to  say  that  the  Uni- 
versity of  California  employs  instructors  whose  judgment 
it  is  willing  to  trust  concerning  the  matter  to  be  taught 
a7td  tlie  methods  of  teaching  it.  It  does  not,  consequent- 
II 


1 62  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA, 

\y,  deem  it  necessary  to  exercise  a  censorship  over  them, 
either  in  the  biological  or  any  other  department. 

'' Wm.  E.  Ritter,  Asst.  Prof,  of  Biology." 

"  Amherst  College,  Mass. 
' '  Thus  far,  the  professor  has  had  the  power  to 
decide  what  sort  of  work  should  be  done  in  the  zoologi- 
cal laboratory,  and  under  what  conditions  it  should  be 
done.  .  .  .  The  trustees  have  undoubtedly  power  to 
i7iake  and  enforce  whatever  rules  and  restrictions  7?iay  seem 
best  to  them.  They  have  never,  to  my  knowledge,  made 
any  attempt  to  modify  my  modes  of  laboratory  work. 

^'  I  neither  perform,  nor  allow  any  student  to  perform, 
any  experiments  involving  vivisection  in  the  laboratory. 
In  very  simple  physiological  experiments,  such 
as  showing  the  circulation  of  the  blood,  I  always  etherize 
the  animal  thoroughly,  and  then  use  the  time  of  complete 
insensibility  preceding  death  for  demonstration.^ 

''  I  am  convinced  that  our  board  would  pass 
no  restrictions  or  prohibitions  without  allowing  me  a 
hearing.  /  should  deprecate  strongly  any  restrictions. 
I  should  consider  such  a  restriction  a  very  grave  and 
severe  reflection  on  my  character ;  any  other  zoologist 
would  feel  it  just  as  deeply. 

''  John  M.  Tyler." 

^  Shortly  after  writing  this  letter  Professor  Tyler  left  for  Europe, 
for  the  purpose  of  taking-  an  advanced  course  in  Biology  at  the 
University  of  Prague.  Doubtless  the  apparent  inconsistency  of 
these  two  sentences  arises  from  omission  of  the  word  '''' pauiful'^ 
before  "vivisection." 


VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICAN  COLLEGES.       1 63 

It  is  evident  therefore  that  in  the  majority  of  Ameri- 
can universities  and  colleges  there  are  no  restrictions 
governing  or  limiting  the  infliction  of  pain.  The  judg- 
ment of  the  professor  is  the  only  guide  ;  his  wish,  the  only 
limitation.  That  which  in  England  would  be  a  crime, 
in  America  would  not  be  even  the  infraction  of  a  college 
rule  !  The  freedom  which  prevails  in  the  physiological 
laboratories  at  Vienna,  Berlin,  and  Paris  has  quietly  taken 
root  in  our  American  universities.  One  hesitates  to  be- 
lieve that  the  atrocities  of  torture  which  have  so  often 
stained  methods  of  research  on  the  Continent  have  been 
duplicated  in  the  physiological  laboratories  of  any  Ameri- 
can college  ;  but  the  opportunity  is  there.  As  a  method 
of  teaching,  no  present  impediment  prevents  their  intro- 
duction at  any  time. 

Nor  is  it  reassuring  to  note  the  apparent  unwillingness 
of  teachers  of  Biology  to  have  freedom  of  action  limited 
by  any  restrictions  hindering  the  infliction  of  prolonged 
or  excruciating  pain.  This  repugnance  one  might  ex- 
pect in  medical  schools  ;  but  it  is  startling  to  find  it  in 
schools  of  science  and  art,  where  no  plea  of  "  benef- 
icent utility"  can  be  brought  forward.  "I  should 
consider  such  restriction  a  very  grave  and  severe  reflec- 
tion on  my  character  ;  any  other  zoologist  would  feel  it 
just  as  deeply,"  says  one  of  the  leading  biologists  of  this 
country.  I  do  not  understand  this  extreme  sensibility. 
Doubtless  the  Czar  of  Russia  prefers  unlimited  power 
to  the  restrictions  of  a  written  constitution  ;  but  abso- 
lutism, whether  on  the  imperial  throne  or  in  the  ph3'S- 
iological  laboratory,  has  not  offered  to  the  world   the 


I  64  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

highest  type  of  conduct.  What,  for  instance,  would 
be  thought  of  the  president  of  a  great  and  wealthy 
university  who  should  proclaim  that,  as  regards  the 
expenditure  of  the  treasurer,  no  restraints  or  restrictions 
were  ever  imposed  ;  that  complete  confidence  in  personal 
character  took  the  place  of  all  vouchers  and  receipts  ? 
What  opinion  should  we  hear  of  the  college  treasurer 
himself,  who  refused  all  demand  for  detailed  statement 
of  his  accounts,  as  "  a  grave  reflection  upon  his  char- 
acter?" Tliere  is  not  an  institution  in  the  land  where 
such  financial  mismanagement  would  not  be  condemned. 
Yet  why  so  many  precautions  against  prodigality  of 
money,  and  such  acute  sensitiveness  toward  the  slightest 
impediment  against  prodigality  of  pain  ? 

What  may  be  done  ?  The  first  step  is  to  convince 
those  who  govern  the  policy  of  our  institutions  of  learn- 
ing that  here,  too,  is  need  of  judicious  surveillance  and 
control.  I  am  not  urging  this  from  the  stand-point  of 
anti-vivisection.  My  only  question  is  whether  vivi- 
section shall,  or  shall  not  be  unrestricted  by  any  rules, 
or  surrounded  by  any  precautions. 

If  every  American  college  were  to  adopt  merely 
the  restraints  which  characterize  the  statute  law  of  Eng- 
land on  this  subject,  the  condition  would  be  far  better 
than  the  immunity  that  now  prevails.  Or,  go  yet  a 
step  farther.  What  consistent  objection  is  there  to  a 
college  regulation  or  law  that  should  forbid  altogether 
those  laboratory  experiments  or  demonstrations  which 
cause  the  infliction  of  any  pain  beyond  that  incident 
to    the    most    humane    method   of    taking    life  ?       At 


VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICAN  COIIEGES.       1 65 

Hamilton  College,  New  York,  no  experiments  are  made 
upon  conscious  animals.  At  Cornell  University  "  the 
utmost  pain  inflicted  "  is  the  instantaneous  killing  of  a 
frog.  If  Science-teaching  there  does  not  suffer  from 
this  self-imposed  restraint,  why  should  not  such  praise- 
worthy custom  be  made  in  every  college  the  imperative 
rule  ?  ' '  Unnecessary  ?  ' '  There  never  yet  was  un- 
limited opportunity,  that  did  not,  in  the  end,  witness 
most  grave  abuse. 

We  are  almost  at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  cen- 
tury. Civilization  is  about  to  enter  a  new  era,  with 
new  problems  to  solve,  new  dangers  to  confront,  new 
hopes  to  realize.  It  is  useless  to  deny  the  increasing  as- 
cendancy of  that  spirit  which  in  regard  to  the  problems 
of  the  Universe,  alarms  nothing,  denies  nothing,  but 
continues  its  search  for  solution  ;  useless  to  shut  our 
eyes  to  its  influence  upon  those  beliefs  which  for  many 
ages  have  anchored  human  conduct  to  ethical  ideals. 
Regret  would  be  futile ;  and  here,  perhaps,  is  no  occa- 
sion for  regret.  I  say  '' perhaps;"  some  doubt  yet 
mingles  with  our  hopes.  To  the  new  spirit  which  per- 
chance is  about  to  dominate  the  future — this  longing 
for  Truth,  not  for  what  she  gives  us  in  the  profit  that  the 
ledgers  reckon,  but  for  what  she  is  herself;  this  high  ^  • 
ambition  to  solve  the  mysteries  that  perplex  and  elude 
us,  the  world  may  yet  owe  discoveries  that  shall  revolu- 
tionize existence,  and  make  the  coming  era  infinitely 
more  glorious  in  beneficent  achievement  than  the  one 
whose  final  record,  history  is  so  soon  to  end. 

But   all   real   progress   in    civilization   depends   upon 


K 


1 66  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

man's  ethical  ideals.  Infinite  responsibility  for  the 
moral  impetus  of  the  next  generation  rests  to-day  on  the 
shoulders  of  those  who  stand  at  the  head  of  institutions 
of  learning  wherein  are  created  and  fashioned  the  as- 
pirations of  young  men.  What  shape  and  tendency 
are  these  hopes  and  ambitions  to  assume  in  coming 
years  ?  What  are  the  ideals  held  up  before  American 
students  in  American  colleges  ?  What  are  the  names 
whose  mention  is  to  fire  youth  with  enthusiasm,  with 
longing  for  like  achievement  and  similar  success?  Is 
it  Richet,  ^^  bending  over  palpitating  entrails,  sur- 
rounded by  groaning  creatures,"  not,  as  he  tells  us, 
with  any  thought  of  benefit  to  mankind,  but  simply 
*'  to  seek  out  a  new  fact,  to  verify  a  disputed  point?  " 
Is  it  Mantegazza,  watching  day  by  day,  '^  con  molto 
amore  e  patienza  moltissima'' — ^with  much  pleasure  and 
patience — the  agonies  of  his  crucified  animals?  Is  it 
Brown-Sequard,  ending  a  long  life  devoted  to  the  tor- 
ment of  living  things,  with  the  invention  of  a  nostrum 
Aat  earned  him  nothing  but  contempt?  Is  it  Goltz 
of  Strassburg,  noting  with  wonder  that  mother-love  and 
yearning  solicitude  could  be  shown  even  by  a  dying 
animal,  whose  breasts  he  had  cut  off,  and  whose  spinal 
cord  he  had  severed  ?  Is  it  Magendie,  operating  for 
cataract,  and  plunging  the  needle  to  the  bottom  of  his 
patient's  eye,  that  by  experiment  upon  a  human  being 
he  might  see  the  effect  of  irritating  the  retina?  Is  it 
Strieker,  making  a  tortured  ape  to  mimic  the  agony  of  a 
dying  man  ? 

These  men,  it  is  true.  Science  counts  among  her  dis- 


VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICAN  COLIEGES.       l6'J 

ciples.  They  reached  fame  through  great  tribulation, 
through  agony  that  never  can  be  reckoned  up,  but  it 
was  not  their  own;  through  "sacrifice,"  indeed,  but 
not  self-sacrifice ;  through  abnegation  of  compassion,  by 
suppression  of  pity.  Surely  in  these  names,  and  such 
as  these,  there  can  be  no  uplift  or  inspiration  to  young 
men  toward  that  unselfish  service  and  earnest  work 
which  alone  shall  help  toward  the  amelioration  of  the 
world.  ''The  old  order  changeth,"  but  are  there  not 
some  ideals  of  humanity  that  do  not  waver  with  the 
passing  years  ? 

Perchance  the  curiosity  of  Science  will  one  day 
spend  itself.  The  last  evasive  and  evading  mystery  of 
Life  may  not  be  wrested  from  Nature  by  fire  or  steel. 
Then  there  may  be  names  that  Humanity  will  forget, 
or  remember  only  to  execrate.  But  whenever  in  time 
to  come,  men  shall  long  to  lessen  in  some  way  the  awful 
sum  of  ache  and  anguish  in  the  world,  may  th'ey  not 
rather  turn  for  their  inspiration  to  those  ideal  examples 
of  self-sacrifice  which  still  encourage  us ;  to  Howard, 
risking  life  in  prison  and  lazar-house,  that  by  revelation 
of  their  infamy  he  might  stir  the  conscience  of  Europe 
to  the  need  of  reform  ;  to  Wilberforce  and  Clarkson, 
toiling  amid  obloquy  and  abuse  for  more  than  twenty 
years  to  put  down  the  African  slave-trade  ;  to  Garrison, 
waging  war  for  thirty  years  that  he  might  help  to  free 
America  from  the  stain  of  human  bondage ;  to  Shaftes- 
bury, confronting  the  organized  greed  of  England  in  his 
effort  to  protect  children  in  coal  mines  and  factories  ;  to 
Arnold  Toynbee,  making  his  home  amid   the  squalor 


1 68  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

and  wretchedness  of  Whitechapel,  that  he  might  know 
by  hard  experience  the  bitterness  of  Hfe  for  the  London 
poor.  Are  not  these  better  examples  for  the  emulation 
of  youth  than  those  devotees  of  research  whose  pitiless- 
ness  is  their  supreme  title  to  the  remembrance  of  poster- 
ity? Surely,  they  would  whisper  to  us,  if  they  could, 
from  their  eternal  serenity,  that  the  right  path  to  the 
world's  amelioration  is  not  by  way  of  torture;  that  our 
closing  century  will  not  see  the  end  of  great  opportuni- 
ties for  helpful  work  ;  that  while  poverty,  war,  preventa- 
ble disease  and  unmerited  suffering  yet  afflict  the  world, 
it  will  not  cease  to  need  the  sympathy,  the  devotion, 
and  the  self-sacrifice  of  earnest  souls. 


APPENDIX  A. 

LINES    OF    INQUIRY    REGARDING    VIVISECTION. 

I.  Do  European  physiologists  as  a  rule  p7'ofess  or  jnanifest 
in  any  way  the  slightest  regard  for  the  sufferings  of 
the  animals  upon  which  they  experiment  ? 

(See  Dr.  Klein's  testimony  before  the  Royal  Com- 
mission, 1876,  Ques.  3535-3547  :  ''  No  regard  at  all.") 

Dr.  Yeo,  Professor  of  Physiology,  London,  speaks  of 
'<•  the  ofttold  tale  of  horrors  contained  in  the  works  of 
Claude  Bernard,  Brown-Seqiiard,  Paul  Bert,  and  Richet 
in  France,  Mantegazza  in  Italy,  and  FUnt  in  America." 
{Fortnightly  Review,  March,  1882.)  ''  Inhumanity  may 
be  found  in  persons  of  very  high  position  as  physiolo- 
gists ;  we  have  seen  it  was  so  in  Magendie."  (Report 
of  Royal  Commission  signed  by  Prof.  T.  H.  Huxley.) 

2.  Have  the  cruelties  of  Magendie,  Schiff,  Bert,  Man-  1  I 
tegazza,  Strieker,  Goltz,  and  others,  in  any  one  single 
instance,  led  to  the  discovery  of  a  new  remedy  for , 
disease  ? 


ii 


They  have  not.     ^qq  Scribner' s  Monthly ,  July,  1880. 
Lippincotfs  Magazine,  August, 'n 884. 


I/O  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

J.    When  a  writer  asserts  that  in  experiments  ''  ancesthet- 
ics  are  always  used, ' '  does  he  include  curare  ? 

Ask  him.  Often  he  includes  it.  But  curare  is  used 
simply  to  keep  the  animal  motionless. 

4.  Does  the  use  of  curare  abolish  pain  ? 

Claude  Bernard,  of  Paris,  and  Prof.  Austin  Flint,  of 
New  York,  agree  that  sensation  is  not  abolished.  (See 
Flint's  ''  Physiology,"  page  595.)  Prof.  Gamgee  experi- 
mented on  children  and  arrived  at  the  same  conclusion. 
(Report  Royal  Commission,  Ques.  5407.) 

5.  Do  any  safeguards  exist  which  would  in  any  way 

prevent  the  most  cruel  experiments  of  Europe  from 
being  repeated  here  in  America  ? 

None  whatever. 

6.  Does  any  State  in  the  Union  require  a  report  to  be 

made  of  all  vivisection  experiments,  as  in  England, 
Scotland,  and  Ireland  I  Or  are  experiments  with- 
out any  such  restraint  ? 

Experimenters  are  not  required  to  make  any  report  of 
what  they  do,  and  there  are  no  restrictions  of  any  kind. 

7.  Are  experi77ients  co??imon  in  America  which  are  con- 

trary to  law  in  all  parts  of  Great  Britain  ?^ 

Painful  experiments  for  teaching  purposes  are  not  al- 
lowed in  England,  but  are  everywhere  employed  in  Ameri- 
can medical  schools.     As  examples  of  American  practices. 


APPENDIX  A.  171 

consult  Flint's  '' Physiology, "  pp.  269,  282,  403,  489,, 
585-589,  639,674,  710,  738.  Journal  of  Physiology] 
vol.  ii.,  p.  63,  and  vol.  vii.,  p.  416.  '' Vivisection  is 
grossly  abused  in  the  United  States.  .  .  .  We^ 
would  add  our  condemnation  of  the  ruthless  barbaritj 
which  is  every  winter  perpetrated  in  the  medical  school 
of  this  couiTUgin  ' '  II"  therapeutic  Gazette,  August,  1880." 


Would  it  not  be  entirely  practicable  for  students  of 
physiology  to  reniejnber  the  functions  of  the  spinal  cord, 
for  instance,  by  means  of  diagrams,  without  the  use 
of  torture  as  an  illustt^ation  ?  How  do  they  remem- 
ber such  facts  in  Great  Britain,  where  torture  can- 
not  thus  be  used  ? 


No  answer  has  thus  far  been  given  to  this  query  by  the 
advocates  of  vivisection  without  restraint.  ^Sr^ 

g.  Are  medical  discoveries  of  any  value  ever  made  with- 
out vivisection,  or  by  its  opponents  ? 

"  Time  was,"  says  a  writer  in  the  New  York  Medical 
Record,  ^'  when  in  certain  forms  of  peritonitis,  opium  was 
the  chief  remedy ;  to-day,  Lawson  Tait's  teaching  that 
this  is  da^tgerous,  and  that  the  opposite  treatment  by 
salines  is  more  useful,  is  most  successfully  followed."  ^ 

Who  is  this  Lawson  Tait  ? 

One  of  the  most  eminent  surgeons  of  Great  Britain. 
Yet  he  says:  ''  Like  every  member  of  my  profession  I 
was  brought  up  in  the  belief  that  many  of  our  most  valued 

*  N.  Y.  Medical  Record,  November  4,  1893,  p.  577. 


172  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA, 

means  of  saving  life  and  diminishing  suffering  had  re- 
sulted from  experiments  on  the  lower  animals.  I  now 
know  that  nothing  of  the  sort  is  true  concerning  surgery  ; 
I  do  not  believe  vivisection  has  helped  the  surgeon  one 
bit ;   and  I  know  it  often  led  me  astray." 

10.    Why  do  not  Amej'ican  physicicms  condemn  all  ex- 
periments which  are  cruel  in  tendency  ?    4 

There  are  comparatively  i<^\^  American  physicians  who 
would  approve  or  sanction  some  of  the  atrocities  men- 
tioned in  these  pages,  related  by  the  experimenters  them- 
selves ;  may  there  not  be  many  more  who  would  welcome 
any  legal  restrictions  which  would  not  only  make  such 
extreme  cruelty  impossible,  but  also  forbid  all  painful 
experiments  for  the  illustration  of  well-known  facts  ?  If 
every  physician  who  believes  that  the  door  to  cruelty 
should  be  shut,  would  but  use  his  personal  influence  to 
that  end,  the  law  would  be  speedily  passed.  Let  us  hope 
that  the  time  may  soon  come,  when  no  man  in  the  medi- 
cal profession  will  hesitate  to  denounce  all  atrocities  of 
experimentation  for  fear  of  being  regarded  as  an  oppo- 
nent of  science. 


The  final  result  of  all  inquiry  regarding  vivisection 
must  depend  greatly  upon  the  point  of  view  assumed  re- 
garding man's  right  of  dominion  over  the  animal  world. 
Disregarding  minor  differences,  it  is  believed  that  the 
principal  opinions  held  respecting  vivisection  may  be 
grouped  together  under  four  different  statements. 


APPENDIX  A.  173 

The  first  of  the  following  paragraphs  presents  the 
view  practically  held  by  those  European  physiologists 
who  acknowledare  no  restrictions  or  restraints.  The 
second  perhaps  fairly  presents  the  opinion  of  American 
teachers  of  physiology  at  the  present  time.  The  third 
statement  sets  forth  the  position  of  those  (including  the 
writer)^  who  would  permit  experimentation  upon  animals, 
but  only  when  done  under  such  legal  restrictions  and 
supervision  as  would  make  scientific  torture  a  crime; 
while  the  last  clause  is  the  ground  taken  by  those  who 
demand  the  abolition  of  vivisection  under  all  circum- 
stances whatever.  The  reader  will  note  that  each  para- 
graph represents  one  phase  of  opinion,  slightly  different 
from  that  which  either  follows  it  or  precedes  it ;  and 
that  otherwise  they  have  no  connection. 

1.  "  Animals  have  no  rights  ivhich  hicman  beings  are 
bound  to  consider  or  respect.  There  need  be  no  re- 
straint ;  man  may  kill,  torture,  or  torment  them  in  any 
way  or  for  any  purpose  of  profit  or  amusement. ' ' 

2.  "  For  his  own  benefit — even  if  slight — man  has  the 
right  to  sacrifice  animals  with  prolonged  torture.  The 
sight,  for  instance,  of  an  animal  like  a  dog,  dying  in 
torment,  may  often  assist  a  dull  or  indolent  student  to 
remember  what  his  books  and  lectures  teach,  better  than 
otherwise.  Wanton  cruelty  for  mere  amusement,  how- 
ever, should  be  severely  deprecated." 

3.  ''  Man  is  justified  in  taking  animal  life  as  quickly  j 
as  possible  for  any^purpose  of  utility  to  himself,  and  even  I 
in  using  animals  as  subjects  for  scientific  experimentation  | 


6^y.M/^-  / 


1 1  ll 


174  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA, 

whenever  this  may  be  done  without  causation  of  pain. 
On  the  other  hand,  to  subject  an  animal  to  torment  for 
anypungggewhatev^   other  than   the  creature's  own 
♦Benefit,  is  an  act  of  cruelty,  and  ethically  wrong." 

4.  ^'  The  killing  of  animals  for  food,  or  for  any  other 
useful  purpose,  is  perhaps  right ;  but  all  that  scientific  ex- 
perimentation upon  them  known  as  '  vivisection  '  is  so 
linked  in  the  past  with  atrocious  cruelty,  and  so  certain 
of  future  abuse,  that,  whether  slight  or  severe,  painful  or 
painless,  every  form  of  experiment  is  fraught  with  dan- 
ger, and,  with  other  forms  of  cruelty,  should  pass  under 
the  ba'n  of  civilization  as  a  barbarity  and  a  crime. ' ' 


APPENDIX    B. 

The  following  resolution,  offered  by  Albert  Leffing- 
well,  M.D.,  of  New  York,  and  seconded  by  John 
Morris,  M.D.,  of  Baltimore,  Md.,  was  adopted  by  the 
American  Humane  Association,  at  its  annual  convention 
in  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  October  29,  1892. 

''  Whereas,  The  evidence  before  this  Association  seems 
clearly  to  prove  that  upon  the  continent  of  Europe 
atrociously  severe  and  cruel  experiments  upon  the  lower 
animals  are  frequently  performed  ;  and, 

Whereas,  While  such  experiments  are  restricted  in 
England,  yet  there  exists  in  no  one  of  our  American 
States  any  legal  restriction  preventing  the  most  painful 
experiments  of  continental  physiologists  from  being 
repeatedly  performed  even  for  the  demonstration  of 
well-known  facts ;  therefore. 

Resolved,  That  the  American  Humane  Association, 
while  not  pronouncing  itself  at  this  time  either  for  or 
against  physiological  research  in  general,  does  hereby 
declare  that,  in  its  judgment,  the  repetition  of  painful 
experiments  before  medical  students  merely  for  the  pur- 
pose of  illustrating  physiological  truths,  is  contrary  to 
humanity  and  ought  not  to  be  continued.  It  agrees 
with  the  opinion  of  the  president  of  the  Royal  College 
of  Physicians,  England,  that  no  experiment  should  be 


1/6  VIVISECTION  IN  AMERICA. 

repeated  in  medical  schools  '  to  illustrate  what  is  already 
established ;  '  with  the  opinion  of  Professor  Huxley, 
that  '■  experimentation  without  the  use  of  anaesthetics 
is  not  a  fitting  exhibition  for  teaching  purposes  ;  '  with 
Sir  James  Paget,  surgeon  to  the  Queen,  that  experi- 
ments for  the  purpose  of  repeating  anything  already 
ascertained  ought  never  to  be  shown  to  classes ;  with 
Dr.  Rolleston,  professor  of  physiology  at  the  University 
of  Oxford,  that  '  for  class  demonstrations  limitations 
should  undoubtedly  be  imposed,  and  these  limitations 
should  render  illegal  painful  experiments  before  classes.' 
Resolved,  That,  acting  upon  such  scientific  opinion 
and  acknowledging  itself  in  accord  therewith,  the 
American  Humane  Association  hereby  respectfully  urges 
upon  the  Legislatures  of  every  State  in  the  Union  the 
enactment  of  laws  which  shall  prohibit,  under  severe 
penalty,  the  repetition  of  painful  experiments  upon 
animals  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  or  demonstrating 
well-known  and  accepted  facts." 


NOTE. 

Anyone  willing  to  help  in  the  wider  diffusion  of 
knowledge  regarding  vivisection  and  toward  the  pre- 
vention of  its  deplorable  abuses  is  invited  to  address 
Box  i6j,  B?yn  Mawr,  Pennsylvania. 

Information  regarding  vivisection  as  practised  both 
in  this  country  and  abroad  may  be  obtained  by  address- 
ing either  of  the  following  societies  or  individuals  : 

American  Anti-Vivisection  Society,  ii8  South  Seven- 
teenth Street  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Box  163,  Bryn  Mawr,  Pa. 

''The  Zoophilist,"  No.  i  Victoria  Street,  London, 
W.,  England. 


The    Humanitarian    League's    Publications. 

No.  I.  — HUMANITARIANISM  :     ITS     GENERAL     PRINCIPLES 
AND    PROGRESS.     By  H.  S.  Salt.     2d. 
"The  new  Humanitarian  League  begins  effectively  what  promises  to  be 
a  series  of  publications.     This  thoughtful  and  persuasive  paper  must  win 
the  sympathy  of  all  humane  readers." — National  Reformer. 

No.  2.  — ROYAL    SPORT:     SOME    FACTS    CONCERNING    THE 
QUEEN'S   BUCKHOUNDS.     By  the  Rev.  J.  Stratton.    id. 
"  Do  decent  people  generally  know  what  devilish  things  are  done  daily  in 
the  Queen's  name  and  that  of  '  Royal  Sport '  ?  " — Weekly  Times  and  Echo. 

No.  3.— RABBIT  COURSING:  AN  APPEAL  TO  WORKING-MEN. 

By  R.  H.  JUDE,  D.Sc,  M.A.     id. 

No.  4.— THE  HORRORS  OF  SPORT.  By  Lady  Florence  Dixie,  id. 

"  As  eloquent  a  condemnation  of  the  brutalizing  pastimes  called  '  Sports  ' 
in  England  as  I  have  ever  read." — Echo. 

No.  5.— BEHIND  THE  SCENES  IN  SLAUGHTER-HOUSES.     By 

H.  F.  Lester,     id. 

"  It  is  necessary  that  the  attention  of  the  public  should  be  aroused  to  the 
evils  attendant  upon  our  present  London  system  of  private  slaughter- 
houses, and  to  the  duty  humanity  imposes  on  us  to  do  all  that  may  be  done 
to  abolish  these  evils." — Daily  News. 

No.  6.— VIVISECTION.     By  Edward  Carpenter  and  Edward  Mait- 

LAND.      6rf. 

"An  admirable  addition  to  the  very  useful  series  of  publications  which 
emanate  from  the  Humanitarian  League." — Zoophilist. 

No.  7.— "I  WAS   IN    PRISON":    A   PLEA   FOR   THE   AMELIO- 
RATION OF  THE  CRIMINAL  LAW.     By  R.J.    6d. 

"The  contents  of  this  little  publication  deserve  to  be  deeply  pondered  by 
all  who  love  their  fellow-men,  and  especially  by  all  who  are  concerned  with 
the  administration  of  the  criminal  law." — Daily  Chronicle. 

No.  8.— WOMEN'S   WAGES,    AND   THE    CONDITIONS   UNDER 

WHICH  THEY  ARE  EARNED.    By  Miss  Isabella  O.  Ford.    id. 

"  It  succeeds  in  placing  before  the  readers  the  horrible  conditions  under 

which  the  mass  of  our  working  sister§  contribute  their  proportion  of  the 

superabundant  wealth  of  this  cown\.xy .''''— Justice. 

No.  9.— DANGEROUS  TRADES.     By  Mrs.  C.  Mallet,    id. 
"  It  should  be  m  the  hands  of  every  social  reformer." — Echo. 

No.  10.  — THE     EXTERMINATION    OF    BIRDS.      By   Miss   Edith 
Carrington.    id. 

No.  II.— THE  HORSE:   HIS  LIFE,  HIS  USAGE,  AND  HIS  END. 

By  Colonel  W.  L.  B.  Coulson.     id. 
"  Let  every  humane  master  who  puts  the  care  of  horses  into  other  people's 
hands  put  into  those  hands  one  of  these  twopenny  brown-paper-covered 
messages  of  mercy." — Echo. 

No.  12.— A  PLEA  FOR  MERCY  TO  OFFENDERS.     By  C.  H.  Hop- 
wood,  Q.C.,  M.P.     id. 

No.  13.— THE    HUMANIZING    QF    THE    POOR    LAW.      By  J.  F. 

Oakeshott.    id. 


The  Friendship  of  Nature. 

A  NEW  ENGLAND   CHRONICLE  OF 
BIRDS   AND    FLOWERS. 

Cloth,  i8mo,  Gilt  Top,  75  Cents. 
Large  Paper  Edition,  with   Illustrations,   $3.00. 


"A  charming  chronicle  it  is,  abounding  in  excellent  de- 
scriptions and  interesting  comment." 

— Chicago  Evening  Journal. 

"  The  author  sees  and  vividly  describes  what  she  sees. 
But  more,  she  has  rare  insight  and  sees  deeply,  and  the 
most  precious  things  lie  deep." — Boston  Daily  Advertiser. 

"There  is  much  of  the  feeling  of  Henry  D.  Thoreau  be- 
tween the  covers  of  this  book,  and  the  expression  is  charac- 
terized by  a  poetic  appreciation  of  the  value  of  word-com- 
bination which  is  admirable." — Philadelphia  Evening Bttlletin. 

"  A  delightful  little  book,  .  .  .  which  brings  one  into 
intimate  acquaintance  with  nature,  the  wild  flowers,  the 
fields,  and  the  brooks." — Springfield  Union. 

"  Thoroughly  delightful  reading." — Boston  Courier . 

"A  very  clever  little  book.  It  .  .  .  takes  .us  through 
a  New  England  year,  describing  the  birds,  flowers,  and 
woods  in  a  most  poetical  and  delightful  mood." 

— Detroit  Free  Press, 


MACMILLAN    &    CO., 

66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York. 


ROMANCE 


OF 


THE   IN5ECT   WORLD. 

By  L.  N.  BADENOCH. 

With  Illustrations  by  Margaret  Badenoch  and  Others. 


i2ino,  Cloth,  $1.25. 


"  The  volume  is  fascinating  from  beginning  to  end,  and  there  are  many 
hints  to  be  found  in  the  wisdom  and  thrift  shown  by  these  smallest 
animal  creatures." — Boston  Times. 

"A  charming  book  to  read,  an  interesting  one  to  study,  is  a  little 
volume  of  untechnical  natural  history,  '  Romance  of  the  Insect  World,' 
by  L.  N.  Badenoch.  The  chapter  subjects  are :  The  Metamorphoses  of 
Insects— Food  of  Insects— Hermit  Homes— Social  Homes— and  The  De- 
fences of  Insects,  or  Protection  as  Derived  from  Color.  .  .  .  The  author 
has  been  able  to  tell  the  interesting  facts  of  the  insect  world  in  the  simplest 
style  and  in  a  remarkably  intelligent  and  lucid  manner.  And  on  every 
page  is  evidence  of  the  thorough  familiarity  of  the  writer  with  the  life  of 
which  he  writes  and  his  sympathy  with  the  subject.  The  result  is  a  splen- 
did book  to  be  put  in  the  hands  of  any  youth  who  may  need  an  incentive 
to  interest  in  out-door  life  or  the  history  of  things  around  him." 

— Chicago  Times. 

"Though  not  written  for  children,  this  is  a  delightful  book  for  the 
little  folk.  It  tells  the  wonderful  facts  in  the  lives  of  beetles,  bugs,  butter- 
flies and  flies,  ants  and  spiders,  wasps  and  bees,  and  all  their  kin,  their 
transformations,  their  methods  of  capturing  prey  or  laying  up  food,  their 
care  of  the  young  or  the  feeble  in  the  case  of  those  who  have  this  instinct, 
and  many  other  things  more  marvelous  than  the  indifferent  would  suppose 
possible.  .  .  .  There  are  few  readers  of  any  age  who  will  not  feel  its 
charm . " — Evangelist. 


MACMILLAN    &    CO.,    Publishers, 

66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York. 


RICHARD  JEFFERIES. 

A    STUDY. 

By    H.    S.    salt. 

^wixh     a    portrait. 

dilettante  library. 

i6mo,   crocodile   cloth.     Price,  90  cents. 

*^*Also    an   EDITION   DE    LUXE,   limited,    printed    on 
hand-made    paper.  With    four    full-page    plates    of 

"  Jefferies  Land,"  by  B.   Newcombe.      Price,  $3.00   net. 


"  Mr.  Salt's  book  is  ably  written.  It  selects  only  the 
significant  phases  of  the  life  of  Jefferies  for  an  explana- 
tion of  the  man  ;  only  the  importa-'t  incidents  of  his  work 
for  an  interpretation  of  the  author." — New  York   Titnes. 


"  Mr.  Salt  has  performed  his  work  with  discrimination 
and  taste.  While  writing  from  the  point  of  view  of  a 
strong  admirer  he  has  not  permitted  himself  to  fall  into 
mere  laudation,  and  he  has  taken  pains  to  provide 
an  excellent  bibliographical  index,  which  is  at  once  a 
comfort  and  an  aid." — Philadelphia  Evening  Bulleliti.- 


"  Mr.  Salt's  study  is  mtensely  interesting." 

— Cincinnati  Commercial  Gazette, 


MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  66  Fifth  Ave.,  New  York, 


